ect: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/6] fix port id type
>
> On 10/13/2017 3:04 AM, Yang, Zhiyong wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> > The patch (ethdev: increase port_id range) tend to increase port id
> > range in ethdev, not eventdev, Do you mean we should change eventdev port
>>> These are not ethdev drivers, but eventdev ones. I don't think
>>> eventdev needs to go to 16-bit port numbers, but there is no harm in doing
>>> so.
>>> However, it would be best to modify eventdev drivers in a separate
>>> patch - or even pat
o 16-bit port numbers, but there is no harm in doing
> > so.
> > However, it would be best to modify eventdev drivers in a separate
> > patch - or even patchset.
> >
>
> I will remove them and focus on ethdev in the patchset.
Thanks
Zhiyong
> -Original Messa
On 10/12/2017 7:03 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 10:32 AM, Zhiyong Yang wrote:
>> Now ethdev port_id has been increased to uint16_t from uint8_t in the below
>> patch
>> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/29418/
>>
>> but
>> 1. Some features which are applied were still developed ba
On 10/12/2017 10:32 AM, Zhiyong Yang wrote:
> Now ethdev port_id has been increased to uint16_t from uint8_t in the below
> patch
> http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/29418/
>
> but
> 1. Some features which are applied were still developed based on older version
> uint8_t port_id.
> 2. Some
Now ethdev port_id has been increased to uint16_t from uint8_t in the below
patch
http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/29418/
but
1. Some features which are applied were still developed based on older version
uint8_t port_id.
2. Some places using port id such as testpmd are omitted in previous
6 matches
Mail list logo
