From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com (mail-ed1-f68.google.com [209.85.208.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408E22BF4 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:17:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id h13-v6so143414edq.0 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:17:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kk8jXtq6o7buG3OeJehrTL0Znugc8KJdkeJFPxNt6Is=; b=CUpQrcQJNTOvSxRHXteEzUV5DuypzBUHQRX8b+UAFD4TpN3Mst23I2ESO4rFcaf6KV R+YWO0Dk/hVWykofAymWXunUEUhkwdfqar0UpNi+1p5h+wdYgOaiE5+jlb61wEeZxOK/ +GhlKlyITxNiIwf7A/t39XihmWPpMROQY9/dLn30P7VA0ACvLwB/D26uZ/M5uc3/6/6C OY4FATxjw+e85GRLIOWkLSYb5CS40lD6RyqobtdQmBg/1eK/ehkK3auW44adHEavCpD4 pPytLJ+jY45Kf4RUYCb05MO2F1kVXt70lloWPzvW+zYDocPaO3G8rBTqtGvdJLhUz84O IeWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kk8jXtq6o7buG3OeJehrTL0Znugc8KJdkeJFPxNt6Is=; b=SAXiw1MMvAEONdIV81ZdUPkbHirjXGJj1KNgYq9+L3mCWSaaGBN2OW0vnGg7yebGL1 9E6w3EoaXnmEiSscqkpOByoSulIVUwbwPfIZ0SFKkPNBTUY0HlRvGq8jfd/yH3SfMoVW BlKmt4drTRhMyKs9H8uHHYG412sezfeIj/cFVwEFBOzsCw7jHkBniFGIvJfx7t/ws9PG ALGkfQlyTySc36meaDjsbGofNI07XZH09aG/7jszEo+ZGtoGYdLMxkpr0Beyh67+PkOW EHkFRP2FUzURm1bA9rzZw68aL7NEqY6LQJ/gHDTinQXefG037JTUIKVk1LkTXs1n+ttB HIVg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoggWsM6qLQEimgMcVrfeeFH0YKCRxWyuIsizi3QAAzZS9qZYG8P Y5KJuBtmRx9h9FXckzHYFPDbbQ12FsGgv2/q24PdSA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62Dz0GZ+XA4++5d+qabfJphNlt0d0gpvdLdMP78ZLPDAdyKRfPT2oGYoQXLOXkU4CE8P4UkLcjQ5eUgowf1Gr4= X-Received: by 2002:a50:9386:: with SMTP id o6-v6mr14693510eda.248.1538745455889; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:17:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1538047596-23954-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <256449070.EJcjglVyyx@xps> <5e62c6c8-0650-b1f9-6a98-d70f5f3a944b@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <5e62c6c8-0650-b1f9-6a98-d70f5f3a944b@intel.com> From: Alejandro Lucero Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:17:24 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Andrew Rybchenko , dev , rasland@mellanox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add field for device data per process 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, 05 Oct 2018 13:17:36 -0000 On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:01 PM Ferruh Yigit 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