From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/enic: fix multi-process operation
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:25:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4171800.AgbnscgTn2@xps>
References: <20170911185833.11458-1-johndale@cisco.com>
 <488ca130-7a8e-223f-5b9e-50bdab9b93f2@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
To: John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F04D239
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:25:27 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <488ca130-7a8e-223f-5b9e-50bdab9b93f2@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

18/09/2017 23:27, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 9/11/2017 7:58 PM, John Daley wrote:
> > - Use rte_malloc() instead of malloc() for the per device 'vdev' structure
> >   so that it can be shared across processes.
> > - Only initialize the device if the process type is RTE_PROC_PRIMARY
> > - Only allow the primary process to do queue setup, start/stop, promisc
> >   allmulticast, mac add/del, mtu.
[...]
> > --- a/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c
> > @@ -142,6 +142,10 @@ enicpmd_dev_filter_ctrl(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >  static void enicpmd_dev_tx_queue_release(void *txq)
> >  {
> >  	ENICPMD_FUNC_TRACE();
> > +
> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > +		return;
> > +
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I am not sure about these updates. Agree that these functions should
> know process type, but all others PMDs don't do this.
> 
> Added a few more people for comment, but as far I understand its
> application responsibility to NOT call these functions if it is
> secondary process.
> 
> For device init/uninit, that is part of eal_init() and have to be called
> both for primary and secondary process and PMD needs to protect it, for
> other functions application's responsibility.

Yes for now it is the policy.
But it is a gray area and it could be clearer with my "ownership proposal":
	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/074656.html
A secondary process could manage the ports it owns.

Feel free to comment the proposal.