On Jul 10, 2017, at 3:15 AM, Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com<mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com>> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/8] mbuf: use 2 bytes for port and nb segments Hi, On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 07:54:23 +0000, "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.w...@intel.com<mailto:zhihong.w...@intel.com>> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:03 PM To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com<mailto:yuanhan....@linux.intel.com>> Hi Yuanhan, On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:45:23 +0800, Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com<mailto:yuanhan....@linux.intel.com>> wrote: Hi Olivier, On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: Change the size of m->port and m->nb_segs to 16 bits. But all the ethdev APIs are still using 8 bits. 16 bits won't really take effect without updating those APIs. Any plans? --yliu Yes, there is some work in ethdev, drivers and in example apps to make the change effective. I think we could define a specific type for a port number, maybe rte_eth_port_num_t. Using this type could be a first step (for 17.08) before switching to 16 bits (17.11?). I'll do the change and send a rfc. Ping ;) Is this still in your plan? Sorry, I don't think I will have time to work on this issue in the coming weeks. If you plan to do it, I will be happy to help with reviews and comments. As I said in a previous message, I think a good first step would be to introduce a typedef for the port number: rte_eth_port_num_t. It can still be uint8_t for now, and can be switched to 16 bits in one step when everyone uses this new type. Olivier I think that DPDK follows the Linux tradition of exposing the variable types, as opposed to hiding them behind typedefs. This has the unfortunate consequence that when a variable type changes, it has to be changed everywhere. Introducing a rte_eth_port_num_t will require changing the same files at the same locations everywhere, so not even as a temporary solution will it be beneficial. I would like to see a much smaller typedef name here, we use it everywhere. rte_port_id_t port_id_t port_num_t portid_t I do not see why it needs to be rte_eth or even rte_, if we do not put eth in the name then is could be used in crypto or someplace else. Med venlig hilsen / kind regards - Morten Brørup Regards, Keith
