From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36A4B46D for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2015 04:19:12 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,512,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="456217172" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.37]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2015 04:08:09 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:23:12 +0025 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:23:12 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Tetsuya Mukawa Message-ID: <20150218122311.GA5960@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1423470639-15744-2-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <54E3F0F0.1030102@igel.co.jp> <54E42CCD.6020900@igel.co.jp> <3870939.2syNine7YF@xps13> <20150218100328.GB14728@bricha3-MOBL3> <54E4703E.1010904@igel.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54E4703E.1010904@igel.co.jp> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Neil Horman Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 03/14] eal/pci, ethdev: Remove assumption that port will not be detached X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:23:18 -0000 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:58:06PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > On 2015/02/18 19:03, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57:25AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 2015-02-18 15:10, Tetsuya Mukawa: > >>> On 2015/02/18 10:54, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > >>>> On 2015/02/18 9:31, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> 2015-02-17 15:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > >>>>>> On 2015/02/17 9:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>>>> 2015-02-16 13:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > >>>>>>> Is uint8_t sill a good size for hotpluggable virtual device ids? > >>>>>> I am not sure it's enough, but uint8_t is widely used in "rte_ethdev.c" > >>>>>> as port id. > >>>>>> If someone reports it doesn't enough, I guess it will be the time to > >>>>>> write a patch to change all uint_8 in one patch. > >>>>> It's a big ABI breakage. So if we feel it's going to be required, > >>>>> it's better to do it now in 2.0 release I think. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any opinion? > >>>>> > >>>> Hi Thomas, > >>>> > >>>> I agree with it. > >>>> I will add an one more patch to change uint8_t to uint16_t. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Tetsuya > >>>> > >>> Hi Thomas, > >>> > >>> Could I make sure. > >>> After changing uint8_t to uint16_t in "rte_ethdev.[ch]", must I also > >>> need to change other applications and libraries that call ethdev APIs? > >>> If so, I would not finish it by 23rd. > >>> > >>> I've counted how many lines call ethdev APIs that are related to port_id. > >>> Could you please check an attached file? > >>> It's over 1200 lines. Probably to fix one of caller, I will need to > >>> check how port_id is used, and fix more related lines. So probably > >>> thousands lines may need to be fixed. > >>> > >>> When is deadline for fixing this changing? > >>> Also, if you have a good idea to fix it easier, could you please let me > >>> know? > >> It was an open question. > >> If everybody is fine with 255 ports maximum, let's keep it as is. > >> > > I think we are probably ok for now (and forseeable future) with 255 max. > > > > However, if we did change it, I agree that in 2.0 is a very good time to do so. > > Since we are expanding the field, rather than shrinking it, I don't see why we > > can't just make the change at the ethdev level (and in libs API) in 2.0 and then in > > later releases (e.g. 2.1) update the apps and examples to match. That way the > > ABI stays the same from 2.0 onwards, and we don't have a huge amount of churn > > changing it everywhere late in the 2.0 release cycle. > > Hi Bruce, > > Could you please check my RFC patch I will send soon? > I wrote the patch like below. > > 1. Copy header file like below. > $ cp lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_internal.h > 2. Change "rte_ethdev.c" to include "rte_ethdev_internal.h" > 3. Change type of port id in "rte_ethdev.c" and "rte_ethdev_internal.h". > > If the patch is OK, I wll send it with hotplug patches. > > Thanks, > Tetsuya > > Why the new ethdev internal file?