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.y...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan
>> <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>
>> Cc: tho...@monjalon.net; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Hunt, David
>> <david.h...@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.y...@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.
[1]
-typedef uint8_t portid_t;
+typedef uint16_t portid_t;
<...>
