From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:13:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1526278.zylApLv2LJ@xps> References: <20180118131017.GA1622@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20180119133019.GB5342@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Matan Azrad , Bruce Richardson , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Gaetan Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" To: Neil Horman Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4539B1B322 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:14:23 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20180119133019.GB5342@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 19/01/2018 14:30, Neil Horman: > So it seems like the real point of contention that we need to settle here is, > what codifies an 'owner'. Must it be a specific execution context, or can we > define any arbitrary section of code as being an owner? I would agrue against > the latter. This is the first thing explained in the cover letter: "2. The port usage synchronization will be managed by the port owner." There is no intent to manage the threads synchronization for a given port. It is the responsibility of the owner (a code object) to configure its port via only one thread. It is consistent with not trying to manage threads synchronization for Rx/Tx on a given queue.