09/05/2018 15:30, Gaëtan Rivet: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:01:58PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > Hi Gaetan > > > > Regarding backporting. > > This version should be bacported for 18.02.1. > > There we have the new event. > > > > Then the fixline should probably reflect this instead. > Targetting the initial failsafe release won't work. > > This patch also relies on probing_finish() being introduced, so I guess > the plan is to backport the whole series in 18.02.1?
Yes, I will provide a backported series for 18.02. > If so, I think the whole series should target the same commit id within > this release, maybe the introduction of ownership or RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW. > > In any case, I think I recall being told to leave this to stable > maintainers to deal with. However, I do not see the benefit of having > a fixline if the information is meant to be discarded for someone to do > the work again. The information in the Fixes line shows where the bug was introduced. It is used to do our backports (to know if a fix is relevant) but it can be used for other purposes like identifying known issues in a given version. So, in short, these bugs can be fixed easily in 18.02, but probably not worth to backport in older releases (no 17.11 backport). > > Regarding uint32 > > The maximum port id number can be 0xffff. > > In this case the loop will be infinite if we use uint16 to iterate over all > > the ports. > > If RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to 0xffff, an array rte_eth_devices[0xffff] > would be defined statically, and I think other issues would arise > before our being stuck in an infinite loop? > > In any case, if this had to be fixed, then there should be a > BUILD_BUG_ON RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS being 0xffff, in the relevant part of > librte_ethdev, instead of relying on librte_ethdev users skirting > shortfalls of the library. Anyone iterating on port IDs should expect the > port_id type to be sufficient to hold this information. Interesting thought. I vote for keeping Matan's option as it is correct, and will accept a patch in 18.08 for your option (BUILD_BUG_ON). Maybe we should send a deprecation notice before limiting the max number of ports to 0xfffe? Or is it ridiculous for such unlikely constraint?
