[EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit api

[Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi]

Thanks Thomas. I will send v2 with uint32_t type.

Thanks,
Satha.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:34 PM
To: Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi <skoteshwar at marvell.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>; dev at dpdk.org; ferruh.yigit at amd.com; bruce.richardson at intel.com; konstantin.v.ananyev at yandex.ru; ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] doc: announce changes to rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit api

07/07/2022 15:38, Satha Koteswara Rao Kottidi:
> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
> > On 7/1/22 18:32, skoteshwar at marvell.com wrote:
> > > +* ethdev: The function ``rte_eth_set_queue_rate_limit`` takes 
> > > +``rate``
> > > in Mbps. +  This parameter declared as uint16_t, queue rate 
> > > limited to 64Gbps. +``rate``
> > > +  parameter will be modified to uint64_t in DPDK 22.11 so that it 
> > > +can work for
> > > +  more than 64Gbps.
> > 
> > I fully agree that uint16_t is not enough, but I'd like to 
> > understand the reason behind uint64_t vs uint32_t. It looks like 
> > uint32_t is more than enough.

> yes uint32_t is enough, proposed uint64_t so that the rate in TM 
> shaper profile is also uint64_t in bps

I don't see how both are related.
Why not stick to uint32_t for this parameter?

Also I'm not sure it is breakage.
If it was, it could have been handled with function versioning.
But anyway it is a small change, I am OK with uint32_t.