From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:56:56 +0100
Message-ID: <6c65bf3c-b434-93a0-6c9e-776461181150@intel.com>
References: <20170904055734.21354-1-zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
 <20170909144727.46388-1-zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
 <20170909144727.46388-2-zhiyong.yang@intel.com>
 <ada991be-5eb7-59b1-1303-2b8e757d876c@intel.com>
 <E182254E98A5DA4EB1E657AC7CB9BD2A8AF132E4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 "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: "Yang, Zhiyong" <zhiyong.yang@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3F77CBD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:57:10 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <E182254E98A5DA4EB1E657AC7CB9BD2A8AF132E4@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

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.yang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan
>> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
>> Cc: thomas@monjalon.net; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Hunt, David
>> <david.hunt@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.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;

<...>