Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range

["Yang, Zhiyong" <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>]

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:57 PM
> To: Yang, Zhiyong <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Hunt, David
> <david.hunt@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range
> 
> On 9/13/2017 3:26 AM, Yang, Zhiyong wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:22 PM
> >> To: Yang, Zhiyong <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty,
> Declan
> >> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> >> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Hunt, David
> >> <david.hunt@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range
> >>
> >> On 9/9/2017 3:47 PM, Zhiyong Yang wrote:
> >>> Extend port_id definition from uint8_t to uint16_t in lib and drivers
> >>> data structures, specifically rte_eth_dev_data.
> >>> Modify the APIs, drivers and app using port_id at the same time.
> >>>
> >>> Fix some checkpatch issues from the original code and remove some
> >>> unnecessary cast operations.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhiyong Yang <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ enum dcb_mode_enable  #define
> >>> MAX_RX_QUEUE_STATS_MAPPINGS 4096 /* MAX_PORT of 32 @ 128
> >>> rx_queues/port */
> >>>
> >>>  struct queue_stats_mappings {
> >>> -	uint8_t port_id;
> >>> +	uint16_t port_id;
> >>
> >> Can this be "portid_t port_id;" ? For testpmd, portid_t can be used for all
> port_id
> >> declarations.
> >>
> >
> > Ferruh, the suggestion has been discussed in the following thread. Most of
> people agree on
> > The basic type uint16_t. :).  Your suggestion was my preference  previously.
> > At last, I make this decision to use uint16_t.  You know, whatever I use, some
> ones will stand out and
> > Say the other is better.  :)
> > http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/23208/
> 
> This discussion was whole dpdk, my comment is for testpmd only.
> 
> Testpmd already defines "portid_t" and uses it in many places [1]. I am
> saying why keep using "uint16_t" in some places in testpmd? Lets switch
> all to "portid_t" while we are touching them all.

Make sense.  Do it as you say. Thanks for the suggestion.

Zhiyong