11/07/2017 15:30, Morten Brørup: > Morten Brørup wrote: > > Olivier Matz wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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. [...] > 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.
So, Morten, you are against the typedef, right? Because we need to change it everywhere anyway, right? Note: I have no strong opinion.
