From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DC71B326 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:33:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-4011-eaa3-4b92-4a68-8f24.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:4011:eaa3:4b92:4a68:8f24] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>) id 1ecXjJ-0001Y4-Pi; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:33:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:32:45 -0500 From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Message-ID: <20180119143245.GA9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <AM6PR0502MB3797C4325F714846B637ADB2D2E80@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20180119135753.GD5342@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <4383328.LcqRCZq5Jg@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4383328.LcqRCZq5Jg@xps> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:33:32 -0000 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 > > >