> > > > Instead an "in_use" parameter can be added which can tell if sone other > > process is using it or not. > > And this in_use param also need not be exposed to user. It can be > > completely hidden in the PMD. > > User will get an error number(probably -EUSERS) indicating the queue pair is > > already in use. > > Great idea. That's what I am after too. So can I sum up the following change? > > - each queue pair has a "in_use" param. I believe we can refine this a bit by > a "not_in_use", "in_use_by_primary" and "in_use_by_secondary" enum. This is specific to the PMD. Each PMD may have its own implementation.
> - the secondary process may request to configure a queue pair by sending > message to primary > - as of requesting freeing a queue pair > - primary can free any queue pair. > - but for secondary to free a queue pair, we have a problem: > - we may allow secondary to request freeing the queue pair if it > is "in_use_by_secondary". But then there may be a security > issue as a secondary can free a queue pair used by different > secondary process. Is it not possible to save pid(inside PMD) of the requesting process in queue private data which is being configured? > - or we may not allow secondary process to request freeing > any queue pair, it is securer, but less flexible. > > > > > > Regards, > > Akhil > > Regards, > Fan
