From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com [74.125.82.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D058D90 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:31:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id r129so4506255wmr.0 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:31:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=dE+fKIUtjHa8w7OnUrhgLdhwC/H8B6UnXMWKGm14lhY=; b=cNpApiESFVMI1/ldDQ8LcPOdjDRCay8zmZEUqhy/cCyvJ7Q8cNYwrSJt47fSRjlXOf QgjW41X8szzoGA2qPPd3Olo3ljxSRyEuev5dhjvlwyZ4AX5pCaWJWenjcFS4ZdNseNmf lFx/a9lzmTya5EMDQMv2gtVkCUbgcCFjMs1+GcYupmJndjQidlD9psFUE9xCBBr2Uou2 5Nq8T94fAuZ57P0xqOsDEY88yeRgAEjav3jfVjI4P0jOLYSR/KureMOqV34sEfERsZLS 5VsR5wsucqrcO+2lJ3cgl5uSXa+stizJHVlstUZJ4WtrQm0oo+f8+Eiani8TsmTuYnSn ATCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=dE+fKIUtjHa8w7OnUrhgLdhwC/H8B6UnXMWKGm14lhY=; b=lU0rWJ8VolAuDTebTHl2i3c3NtHuJBplFJ2V7ure5NXzlkLirvDlC29WCiJTd42R0G OgKFL8szK5P8hu9q8g+lDK9TUeH+yiDalLpX+G+DruwSFF8HvpBOWCg3IjYeLSNxQUz+ Kpph64K0rkHyBBzlCS588tDo62e/cIiwgGDRzpaTkMZ2HRTJ9hattJHrKU1wWb7SYVRH Aq14WY/SIUwYmj6RM4mykFBv9uw5rU3xUmFAkv6OyKckP8z1LHRkVBUiNwli3amQaRhO BYFDAoKsOpZukpswmshVK8RGoxVkwSD8F58lFKXbNLvTZP9a5R5GWOOzl13mbEx7inG8 kjeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ94qBsnll4C4PKX0gt+NFh1BgNUYzxBW8plCuAfWHmMI2yxfLHC+Mbx4qHoXC88rPN6+BfmvJL1n2M9A== X-Received: by 10.194.119.68 with SMTP id ks4mr30210438wjb.45.1454452279106; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:31:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: marc.sune@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.95.202 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:30:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160202132035.3db9bc4b@samsung9> References: <1440807373-24770-1-git-send-email-marc.sune@bisdn.de> <1443993167-1150-1-git-send-email-marcdevel@gmail.com> <1443993167-1150-4-git-send-email-marcdevel@gmail.com> <20160202132035.3db9bc4b@samsung9> From: Marc Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:30:59 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: L9r5FqOaC5Fctt6BhQXzDCe7Xn8 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/4] ethdev: redesign link speed config API 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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:31:19 -0000 On 2 February 2016 at 03:20, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 17:33:20 +0000 > Harish Patil wrote: > > > * Added utility MACROs ETH_SPEED_NUM_XXX with the numeric > > values of all supported link speeds, in Mbps. > > I would prefer that there were no speed value macros. > Linux used to have these, but people kept adding new hardware speeds > and it soon gets out of date. > I see what you mean, but I am not sure I agree. Link speeds are generally a reduced amount of items (~20). Though it is true it can eventually grow, but at small rate. Having numeric constants all over the source seems less readable and less maintainable (e.g. less "grepable"/"sedable") to me. > > If you are going to redo it, then just increase speed to 64 bit, and allow > any non-zero value. > Value is now 32 bits, which I think is enough for future rates in mbps. Since these constants were there, and before doing something to have to revert it, can someone else give his/her opinion on this? If there is consensus, I've no problem on removing it for v8 Thanks marc