RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit api

[Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi <skoteshwar@marvell.com>]

Hi Andrew,

Are you convinced with my response, or you want me to change this field to uint32_t?

Thanks,
Satha.

-----Original Message-----
From: Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi <skoteshwar@marvell.com> 
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 7:09 PM
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit api



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:23 PM
To: Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi <skoteshwar@marvell.com>; Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit api

External Email

----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/1/22 18:32, skoteshwar@marvell.com wrote:
> From: Satha Rao <skoteshwar@marvell.com>
> 
> rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit argument rate modified to uint64_t to 
> support more than 64Gbps.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Satha Rao <skoteshwar@marvell.com>
> ---
>   doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index 4e5b23c..5bf2b72 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -125,3 +125,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
>     applications should be updated to use the ``dmadev`` library instead,
>     with the underlying HW-functionality being provided by the ``ioat`` or
>     ``idxd`` dma drivers
> +
> +* ethdev: The function ``rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit`` takes ``rate`` in Mbps.
> +  This parameter declared as uint16_t, queue rate limited to 64Gbps. 
> +``rate``
> +  parameter will be modified to uint64_t in DPDK 22.11 so that it can 
> +work for
> +  more than 64Gbps.

I fully agree that uint16_t is not enough, but I'd like to understand the reason behind uint64_t vs uint32_t. It looks like uint32_t is more than enough.

>> yes uint32_t is enough, proposed uint64_t so that the rate in TM 
>> shaper profile is also uint64_t in bps