From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3274B42D8D; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A720B40EDB; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:42:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4793B406B7 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:42:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A995C0097; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:42:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1688053341; x=1688139741; bh=J4T3yvrye0q/4kp3VQiNaPKWOtGO+3Bkiit U9/gIpPs=; b=tTdLoDHlL3ftkaxgQDZP+LJLRsWk6f5lrmhHAyKzaw73zFuzi6N FHn0RClztRiHZdo/wEVyU21yp5YC7wue8Xni+w5GNYY8IKN7TO141EnetHuexMhH JV2Khpj/Ug7stmpypVnfLlCYrDYVcummsqr3Q0A2HTEJSX6wc1rqsy1gpWF1/91H puLDLE8KsoZiOm706xkMJJW6juoVqX6vozR+7CNpUd5y1uVNcgrp+CgvysFR32Ub UFDapwNE28hvn98TkFCFgnllMuleOur+YyEOQ20SY0OCjy6rbk2opyhdMv6aMzd0 WCe/2hfPxSCknjn7dalUcPbDXtHPeTcyLHg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1688053341; x=1688139741; bh=J4T3yvrye0q/4kp3VQiNaPKWOtGO+3Bkiit U9/gIpPs=; b=j1CCkYOvICFJekXthwOHP652ap/R3Oqvf0ENvSzKKketc8HLw0p PzIwy6xp21+iXVm/GnD1RWbIB8sdp5OR6twudevtV2bBK55mQhXgoQ6kYhEaoRn6 nG33gy2vbKIVNtgWZN9RTq9FbIEbRcLCiJo8/wNFoVKkxl0wmbxhKL1SWpNPPB9f A/UUw6vel7LYC0FaTZSAd8wRL3U24vfzBke+ykwSC/tMTAv1BQ+tAeIaHAmO2/vQ gjEFsg8DmABh/LFyspNu5aLU9hyBcppAjpstdEAkA/tds4J34Q6weaFL7iftTCW1 vvOmX2Y37hPaCiV/Zktj7UPepGfikgccl/w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedrtdeggdelvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedttdeljeejgeffkeekkedtjeevtdehvedtkeeivdeuuedviedu vdelveejueejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:42:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit , Ori Kam , Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Kiran Kumar K , dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix Tx queue mask endianness Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:42:19 +0200 Message-ID: <2246452.o7ts2hSHzF@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230629135839.974700-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <4981207.a9HWlOh95j@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 29/06/2023 17:40, David Marchand: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 5:31=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 29/06/2023 15:58, David Marchand: > > > - .tx_queue =3D RTE_BE16(0xffff), > > > + .tx_queue =3D 0xffff, > > > > As I said in an earlier comment about the same issue, > > UINT16_MAX would be better. >=20 > 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. =46irst I would like to get some comments, what do you prefer between 0xffff and UINT16_MAX?