From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06EE1B2E0 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:10:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D53720DB4; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:10:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Q9LEPpo0fqeAyVGGsfDDsin/ML XhT4Tb+GV0wQ6smKQ=; b=m9M8wCSa+a+ESUo5wJSp4jtgFpHsmucJjScoJi0SPz JHZ1gLG/4tiy/57gPYFJ8XiNeUsiyuji+DuwU2dk5KG6kodUf07Q58phjjfvN1In +EysF3t0DNFbwjEFcYO201dVWHawZxKtsCJeAMhs5xfAOjBAwIE4WMKE+h+yQr5B U= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Q9LEPp o0fqeAyVGGsfDDsin/MLXhT4Tb+GV0wQ6smKQ=; b=rhc2JMPebNGCXkNZDsVyeg Yp/E6Y46Zw6cjaqtMR5aWNKW1BRFkwahvWoBb8SZUDpLwBUG6ukSbeGcmNbQTRRX WiuvC0LnzuUYfZsS9QymcHBbeaB++u+iXCdRTQDNuN/ieczQig08Frvkm4ZcfteH y4KfSaLQeqc3YXTyRACG0M8KmzINKH135TG9Yc0b5HuXtwaQchmhajuHVvNT4lnA 4kCY+nuI8/tRGEYctSIWWaeqZn+TjdFCgbde0d/fs6wG4/nJGtETEQkrfp6QC6In xFbN0Tr4ulAf3eTepXrY9BD137YWChGIS28eKecPx1rvltLeZJcaZbni7FjEdJrg == X-ME-Sender: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CBF587E496; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:10:24 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: Matan Azrad , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Gaetan Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" , dev@dpdk.org, "Richardson, Bruce" Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:09:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3919053.IPF3Pcupc4@xps> In-Reply-To: <20180119143245.GA9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627DE30@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <4383328.LcqRCZq5Jg@xps> <20180119143245.GA9519@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:10:26 -0000 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.