From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
rasland@mellanox.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add field for device data per process
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:17:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD+H992M50_DC4vQapL9uxwNrrR1Ah=289HYWbDBpN70=KskRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e62c6c8-0650-b1f9-6a98-d70f5f3a944b@intel.com>
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:01 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2018 9:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > + Cc more people
> >
> > 27/09/2018 13:26, Alejandro Lucero:
> >> Primary and secondary processes share a per-device private data. With
> >> current design it is not possible to have data per-device per-process.
> >> This is required for handling properly the CPP interface inside the NFP
> >> PMD with multiprocess support.
> >>
> >> There is also at least another PMD driver, tap, with similar
> >> requirements for per-process device data.
> >
> > Yes, it is required to fix tap PMD for multi-process usage.
> >
> > I am in favor of accepting this change in 18.11.
> >
> > [...]
> >> @@ -539,7 +539,13 @@ struct rte_eth_dev {
> >> eth_rx_burst_t rx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD receive function.
> */
> >> eth_tx_burst_t tx_pkt_burst; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit
> function. */
> >> eth_tx_prep_t tx_pkt_prepare; /**< Pointer to PMD transmit prepare
> function. */
> >> - struct rte_eth_dev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data */
> >> + /**
> >> + * Next two fields are per-device data but *data is shared between
> >
> > All fields in rte_eth_dev are per-device.
> >
> >> + * primary and secondary processes and *process_private is
> per-process
> >> + * private.
> >> + */
> >> + struct rte_eth_dev_data *data; /**< Pointer to device data. */
> >> + void *process_private; /**< Pointer to per-process device data. */
> >
> > We could explain here that this memory is allocated by the PMD.
>
> Will there be new version?
>
> Are we agree on name?
>
> Is LIBABIVER increase should be done in this patch, or will there be other
> patch
> already doing it?
>
I'm not familiar with LIBABIVER but just tell me to send it again with that
change if you consider that is the right thing to do.
About the name, I will let other to tell.
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-05 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 11:26 Alejandro Lucero
2018-10-03 20:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-10-04 11:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 13:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 13:17 ` Alejandro Lucero [this message]
2018-10-05 13:26 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-10-05 14:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAD+H992M50_DC4vQapL9uxwNrrR1Ah=289HYWbDBpN70=KskRw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alejandro.lucero@netronome.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=rasland@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).