Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/5] ethdev: increase port_id range

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

Hi Ferruh, Thomas,

> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ LIB = librte_pmd_af_packet.a
> >
> >  EXPORT_MAP := rte_pmd_af_packet_version.map
> >
> > -LIBABIVER := 1
> > +LIBABIVER := 2
> 
> I have just recognized this one. This shouldn't be updated. Only LIABIVER of the
> libraries that their API modified should be updated.
> 
> The release notes "Shared Library Versions" updates and Makefile LIBABIVER
> updates should be compatible. I mean either both needs to be updated or both
> not updated.
> 

Ok.  I will cleanup the unnecessary updates. 

Here are the list I will update .

-     librte_bitratestats.so.1
+     librte_bitratestats.so.2
-     librte_ethdev.so.7
+     librte_ethdev.so.8
-     librte_pdump.so.1
+     librte_pdump.so.2
-     librte_pmd_bond.so.1
+     librte_pmd_bnxt.so.2
+     librte_pmd_bond.so.2
+     librte_pmd_failsafe.so.2
+     librte_pmd_i40e.so.2
+     librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.2
+     librte_pmd_vhost.so.2

Among them, the following libs are added newly.

+     librte_pmd_bnxt.so.2
+     librte_pmd_failsafe.so.2
+     librte_pmd_i40e.so.2
+     librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.2
+     librte_pmd_vhost.so.2

One  LIBABIVER need to be fixed.
Could you apply your patch  http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/28738/  in the main tree firstly?

I hope the patchset can be merged into main tree.  How do you think about it?

> There is no way to split this patch more without breaking build right?

Yes. it is too hard to split it.

thanks
Zhiyong

> It would be possible to do it if port_t used, but that has been decided not to...
> 
> <...>