[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 03/14] eal/pci, ethdev: Remove assumption that port will not be detached

Tetsuya Mukawa mukawa at igel.co.jp
Wed Feb 18 13:38:54 CET 2015


On 2015/02/18 21:23, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:58:06PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> On 2015/02/18 19:03, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:57:25AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 2015-02-18 15:10, Tetsuya Mukawa:
>>>>> On 2015/02/18 10:54, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could I make sure.
>>>>> After changing uint8_t to uint16_t in "rte_ethdev.[ch]", must I also
>>>>> need to change other applications and libraries that call ethdev APIs?
>>>>> If so, I would not finish it by 23rd.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've counted how many lines call ethdev APIs that are related to port_id.
>>>>> Could you please check an attached file?
>>>>> It's over 1200 lines. Probably to fix  one of caller, I will need to
>>>>> check how port_id is used, and fix more related lines. So probably
>>>>> thousands lines may need to be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> When is deadline for fixing this changing?
>>>>> Also, if you have a good idea to fix it easier, could you please let me
>>>>> know?
>>>> It was an open question.
>>>> If everybody is fine with 255 ports maximum, let's keep it as is.
>>>>
>>> I think we are probably ok for now (and forseeable future) with 255 max.
>>>
>>> However, if we did change it, I agree that in 2.0 is a very good time to do so.
>>> Since we are expanding the field, rather than shrinking it, I don't see why we
>>> can't just make the change at the ethdev level (and in libs API) in 2.0 and then in
>>> later releases (e.g. 2.1) update the apps and examples to match. That way the
>>> ABI stays the same from 2.0 onwards, and we don't have a huge amount of churn
>>> changing it everywhere late in the 2.0 release cycle.
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> Could you please check my RFC patch I will send soon?
>> I wrote the patch like below.
>>
>> 1. Copy header file like below.
>> $ cp lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_internal.h
>> 2. Change "rte_ethdev.c" to include "rte_ethdev_internal.h"
>> 3. Change type of port id in "rte_ethdev.c" and "rte_ethdev_internal.h".
>>
>> If the patch is OK, I wll send it with hotplug patches.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tetsuya
>>
>>
> Why the new ethdev internal file? 

I guess some libraries that  include "rte_ethdev.h". To compile these
libraries, I thought such a header was needed.
But, it seems it's not the time to change type of port_id.
I appreciate for your checking.

Tetsuya



More information about the dev mailing list