From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/14] eal/pci, ethdev: Remove assumption that port will not be detached Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: <1518995.cYPUuEs3Fv@xps13> References: <1423470639-15744-2-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <2372286.XQlcQsOEBg@xps13> <54E2DC38.7000907@igel.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org, Neil Horman To: Tetsuya Mukawa Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54E2DC38.7000907-AlSX/UN32fvPDbFq/vQRIQ@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2015-02-17 15:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > On 2015/02/17 9:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-02-16 13:14, Tetsuya Mukawa: > > Is uint8_t sill a good size for hotpluggable virtual device ids? > > I am not sure it's enough, but uint8_t is widely used in "rte_ethdev.c" > as port id. > If someone reports it doesn't enough, I guess it will be the time to > write a patch to change all uint_8 in one patch. It's a big ABI breakage. So if we feel it's going to be required, it's better to do it now in 2.0 release I think. Any opinion?