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 18:09:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3919053.IPF3Pcupc4@xps> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <4383328.LcqRCZq5Jg@xps> <20180119143245.GA9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Matan Azrad , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Gaetan Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" , dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" 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 F06EE1B2E0 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:10:25 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20180119143245.GA9519@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 15:32, Neil Horman: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 19/01/2018 14:57, Neil Horman: > > > > > I specifically pointed that out above. There is no reason an owernship record > > > > > couldn't be added to the rte_eth_dev structure. > > > > > > > > Sorry, don't understand why. > > > > > > > Because, thats the resource your trying to protect, and the object you want to > > > identify ownership of, no? > > > > No > > The rte_eth_dev structure is the port representation in the process. > > The rte_eth_dev_data structure is the port represenation across multi-process. > > The ownership must be in rte_eth_dev_data to cover multi-process protection. > > > Ok. You get the idea though right? That the port representation, > for some definition thereof, should embody the ownership state. > Neil Not sure to understand your question.