On 6/8/2021 11:39 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 6/8/21 1:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 08/06/2021 10:42, Andrew Rybchenko: >>> On 4/22/21 4:18 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote: >>>> --- a/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst >>>> +++ b/doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst >> [...] >>>> +All the dev ops is supported in primary process. While secondary process >>>> is not permitted >>>> +to allocate or release shared memory, so some ops are not supported as >>>> follows:: >>>> +``dev_configure`` >>>> +``dev_start`` >>>> +``dev_stop`` >>>> +``rx_queue_setup`` >>>> +``tx_queue_setup`` >>>> +``rx_queue_release`` >>>> +``tx_queue_release`` >>> >>> @Thomas, @Ferrh, shouldn't it be handled on ethdev level as >>> well if it is really that strict. >> >> Yes it should be documented at ethdev level, not testpmd. >> I think it was kept fuzzy for too long. > > To document is good, but I'm talking about more - > add checks in corresponding API functions and > return error. >
+Anatoly as multi process maintainer. There are already some PMDs have these checks in the PMD level. But current approach is providing more flexibility, if application takes care of the synchronization, is there any reason some of above APIs can't be used by the secondary process? I am not sure if this flexibility is used or needed, if not needed +1 have the checks in the ethdev layer and remove the PMD ones.
