[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: increase port_id range

[Thomas Monjalon]

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 at 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.