> -----Original Message----- > From: Burakov, Anatoly > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:46 PM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H > <benjamin.h.shel...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender > <narender.vang...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/24] ethdev: enable hotplug on multi-process > > On 26-Jun-18 2:25 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Burakov, Anatoly > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:21 PM > >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; tho...@monjalon.net > >> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > >> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh > >> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H > >> <benjamin.h.shel...@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender > >> <narender.vang...@intel.com> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/24] ethdev: enable hotplug on multi-process > >> > >> On 26-Jun-18 1:58 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > >>> > >>> my understand is peer is identified by a string (or filename) what I > >>> mean is clone the content of the buffer that peer point to , So I > >>> don't need to worry if the original peer be used to point to some > >>> other data > >>> > >> > >> As far as the application is concerned, peer is an opaque pointer, > >> and should be treated as such. Peeking behind a void pointer that is > >> not designed for this purpose is not a good idea, even if technically you > know what's in there. > > > > We can expose a clone interface, like MP_PEER_CLONE, so we don't need to > know what's inside, just need to know that it can be used on another thread? > > > > Well, that can probably work. Feels like a hacky workaround though. > > Another way to do the same thing would be to store peer information right in > the message, as opposed to providing it separately. Still a hack though, and > will > require far more changes, but it could be a better solution as (if done > right) it > would allow identifying which reply came from which peer. > > Of course, an even better approach would be to devise some kind of > addressing scheme (uuid?), so that peer addresses are no longer opaque > pointers but rather are valid data types. > > Thoughts?
I may not give insight comment from the IPC implementation, but from user's view, what required is a unique token, it can be used for reply at anywhere and at any time, to me, currently implementation looks like missing some mapping management between an abstract token to its real data. Thanks Qi. > > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly
