On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:01 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@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
