Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix Tx queue mask endianness

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 6/29/2023 4:42 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 29/06/2023 17:40, David Marchand:
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:31 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>>> 29/06/2023 15:58, David Marchand:
>>>> -     .tx_queue = RTE_BE16(0xffff),
>>>> +     .tx_queue = 0xffff,
>>>
>>> As I said in an earlier comment about the same issue,
>>> UINT16_MAX would be better.
>>
>> I don't mind updating (or maybe Ferruh can squash this directly ?) but
>> there are lots of uint16_t fields initialised with 0xffff in this same
>> file.
> 
> It can be made in a separate patch for all occurences.
> First I would like to get some comments, what do you prefer
> between 0xffff and UINT16_MAX?
> 

Both works, no strong opinion, I am OK with 0xffff,

The variable we are setting is '*_mask', and main point of the value
used is to have all bits set, and 0xff.. usage highlights it.

Not for UINT16_MAX, but for wider variables, it is easier to make
mistake and put wrong number of 'f', using 'UINTxx_MAX' macro can
prevent this mistake, this is a benefit.


And I think consistency matters more, so if you prefer 'UINTxx_MAX',
lets stick to it.

I can update above in next-net, but as far as I understand we can have a
patch to fix all occurrences.