From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:06:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4385808.uF5lz4cc4W@xps> References: <20171130123611.GA20914@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20171205192640.GC10327@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Matan Azrad , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" , dev@dpdk.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1A1200 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:06:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20171205192640.GC10327@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" 05/12/2017 20:26, Neil Horman: > I get that much of dpdk relies on the fact that the application either handles > all the locking, or architects itself so that a single thread of execution (or > at least only one thread at a time), is responsible for packet processing and > port configuration. Yes, for now, configuration is synchronized at application level. It is a constraint for applications. It may be an issue for multi-process applications, or for libraries aiming some device management. The first obvious bug to fix is race in device allocation. It will become more real with hotplug support.