From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tetsuya Mukawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/14] eal/pci, ethdev: Remove assumption that port will not be detached Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:54:56 +0900 Message-ID: <54E3F0F0.1030102@igel.co.jp> References: <1423470639-15744-2-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <2372286.XQlcQsOEBg@xps13> <54E2DC38.7000907@igel.co.jp> <1518995.cYPUuEs3Fv@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org, Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1518995.cYPUuEs3Fv@xps13> 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" On 2015/02/18 9:31, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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? > Hi Thomas, I agree with it. I will add an one more patch to change uint8_t to uint16_t. Thanks, Tetsuya