Yes, I agree. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:21 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> Hi Alejandro, > > 25/09/2018 16:10, Alejandro Lucero: > > I've a problem when part of device private data needs to be private per > > process. > > It appears we are facing the same issue to support multi-process in tap. > > > Current multiprocess support shares device private data between primary > and > > secondaries but it is all dependent on a pointer initialized to the same > > memory address by the multiprocess support code. If there is a > per-process > > data, If a secondary process changes it the primary gets affected, and > the > > same for additional secondaries which will affect not just the primary > but > > other previous secondaries. > > Yes, the field rte_eth_dev.data.dev_private is private to the device, > but shared between processes. > > > The solution is to add support for this inside struct rte_eth_dev, > > something like > > > > void *secondary_priv_data; > > > > so it is up to the secondaries to use this field if necessary. > > I would say it is not only for secondary process. > What about this name: > > rte_eth_dev.process_private > > > NFP PMD creates the required rte_eth_devs specifically, similar to what > is > > done inside rte_ethdev.c but adding initialization for an interface > needed > > when calling device ethdev_init function. There are other PMDs doing this > > but none has this requirement for per-process private data. > > Actually tap has a per-process requirement for its file descriptors. > > > Please, let me know what you think about this change to struct rte_ethdev > > or if you have a better idea for solving this problem. > > I support the idea, but we need to agree on name bikeshedding :-) > > >
