From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5012A1B16A for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:32:56 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b141so13222854wme.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:32:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=3B3RkZmNvvStKlTVUYKupkT/z7ym53FMmBlcrrf9XNg=; b=tIM+uW+iuH9TO/wX+rxz+nALOPQM8OB1Z3liHUb5g9t5E510/ASpHJk/AKg6cKPqs9 XEO/r49mdc3lJVrgg7cfyWlsJcT6ZYNezu30ScHSWqR0+s04IH2w1Fzb6s8jG2WFKG7I wzFXEFMe9JErFcIJqqff2HPIRs4hqpQwO37DK0H0ptx0G6LeRiN0a7+dYJLjhBF9Tq/s CI7YLYJcN4s6kbRlhmJyFv4fkPJtv7zST6UByd/8XSfHZA3agZIV5E6ka2XMQaU2xn61 /WUQ9dU58+OC4mBUIwU7k8kCngAU/sPtjuVvYyhH32fn4mtXicP1Rqf1gt6LxrTcsaaj r8fA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3B3RkZmNvvStKlTVUYKupkT/z7ym53FMmBlcrrf9XNg=; b=N2P2fQtN7MJfRZmBVlfO0Ep7C45+oteWCWgNRvRzhqmP6yFCrHhNZVxbB6fkpUbmoR f4cNjEnPdem3wdGS8mmLOxqTrgLoje2MhY7zzhdvb8afBga9swoCVOCExxLDg73KJczM df9R2Kbzgn9rTB0SHB+ekuOy6uqQkEiHKLTDAK+72KNHTMAGoucOzMCpxLlsx+xG++2F wdxXC/j3wsC0LyHjaGr/cZVdG9fBaceg7v3mzURdTFCxdAlVHS9esb8nHy7Fz+gNyIl5 acgTUvRveGPjm8TrC5O0382TvhEa9bVIB5bc5eRgNJse/SeWsAGi53pQNrA/CqwxHsWI Ulhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLuYJqRbuB7uLvYp5t5rnzpjQO5i7GZrZ+4dNwiF2+EnO7ufa4W T/9nuUerGSNep0G7r9ffjkLWtQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotFA0LhMnF4Ph/hnWDt1e0QYzO+mnp+NahmErqN10CKGDKUSELdFWyKH/Z2/yJJFoyEnRY8UA== X-Received: by 10.28.133.148 with SMTP id h142mr7702830wmd.110.1515407575810; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:32:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j125sm12473949wmd.24.2018.01.08.02.32.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:32:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:32:40 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet To: Matan Azrad Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Jingjing Wu , dev@dpdk.org, Neil Horman , Bruce Richardson , Konstantin Ananyev Message-ID: <20180108103240.yvtwyvi2lfpeakeu@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <1511870281-15282-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1515318351-4756-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <1515318351-4756-6-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1515318351-4756-6-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:32:56 -0000 Hi Matan, Thanks for the patches. A remark however: On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:45:50AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Fail-safe PMD sub devices management is based on ethdev port mechanism. > So, the sub-devices management structures are exposed to other DPDK > entities which may use them in parallel to fail-safe PMD. > > Use the new port ownership mechanism to avoid multiple managments of > fail-safe PMD sub-devices. > I think your implementation does not work with several fail-safe instances, have you tested this configuration? It should be possible for a user to create any number of fail-safe instances. The minimum would be to allow for multiple fail-safe side-by-side, but ideally it should also support a recursive configuration: +-----------+ |fail-safe | | | | | +-+ +--+ | | | | | +-----------+ | | | +-------v----+ +-----v-----+ |fail-safe | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+ +-+ | | | +------------+ | +-----------+ | | +-----v-----+ +-----v-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ If I am not mistaken on this, then you need to generate different owner-ids for each fail-safe instances. I suggest using the full fail-safe instance name, as they are already assured to be different from each other by the EAL, and you thus won't need to generate IDs on the fly, as well as declare a global owner-id prefix. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND