From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:18:12 +0200
Message-ID: <2082709.2bg3ojJAuc@xps>
References: <20170904055734.21354-1-zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
 <E182254E98A5DA4EB1E657AC7CB9BD2A8AF132E4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
 <6c65bf3c-b434-93a0-6c9e-776461181150@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Yang, Zhiyong" <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, "Doherty,
 Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, "Hunt,
 David" <david.hunt@intel.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5AD7CB6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:18:13 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <6c65bf3c-b434-93a0-6c9e-776461181150@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

13/09/2017 13:56, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 9/13/2017 3:26 AM, Yang, Zhiyong wrote:
> > From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> 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.yang@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;

Or the reverse, we can drop portid_t from testpmd, especially if it is
not used everywhere in testpmd.
Note: this typedef hides the size of the port, which may be important
when optimizing code.