From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000FC1B4FD for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:39:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jul 2018 01:39:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,337,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="71374985" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.102]) ([10.237.220.102]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2018 01:39:25 -0700 To: "Zhang, Qi Z" , "thomas@monjalon.net" Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Shelton, Benjamin H" , "Vangati, Narender" References: <20180607123849.14439-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <20180709033706.27858-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <20180709033706.27858-6-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532586BA@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532586FE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:39:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E70611532586FE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 05/19] eal: enable hotplug on multi-process X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:39:29 -0000 On 11-Jul-18 3:11 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: >>>> +/* Max length for a bus name */ >>>> +#define RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN 32 >>> >>> Is this enforced anywhere in the bus codebase? Can we guarantee that >>> bus name will never be bigger than this? >> >> I think 32 should be enough for a bus name even in future. > > Sorry, I missed your point, I think it is not enforced, we still can add a new bus exceed 32, > but for RTE_DEV_NAME_MAX_LEN which is used in rte_devargs to enforce all device name not exceed 64. > So, it's better to move RTE_BUS_NAME_MAX_LEN into hotplug_mp as internal , and this can be regarded as a limitation for hotplug so far, though it should be enough for all exist cases. > And same for RTE_DEV_ARGS_MAX_LEN. Can we fix it in this patchset, or would that involve an ABI break of some sort? -- Thanks, Anatoly