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 C79DE1B31A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:38:02 +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 1ecabt-0003AS-T6; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:37:51 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:37:17 -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: <20180119173717.GD9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <4383328.LcqRCZq5Jg@xps>
 <20180119143245.GA9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
 <3919053.IPF3Pcupc4@xps>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3919053.IPF3Pcupc4@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 17:38:03 -0000

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:09:47PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
> 
There is no real question here, only confirming that we are saying the same
thing.  I misspoke when I indicated ownership information should be embodied in
rte_eth_dev rather than its shared data.  But regardless, the concept is the
same

Neil