> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wiles, Keith > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:26 PM > To: Morten Brørup > Cc: Olivier Matz; Wang, Zhihong; Yuanhan Liu; DPDK; Ananyev, > Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; Chilikin, Andrey; Jan Blunck; > nelio.laranje...@6wind.com; arybche...@solarflare.com; > thomas.monja...@6wind.com; jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/8] mbuf: use 2 bytes for port and > nb segments > > > 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
What I was trying to communicate with my long argument about type definitions was: When the type changed from 8 bit to 16 bit, the type needs to change from uint8_t to uint16_t everywhere too, including in the ethdev APIs. Don't start breaking coding conventions here by hiding the type of this variable. Med venlig hilsen / kind regards - Morten Brørup
