05/12/2017 12:44, Ananyev, Konstantin: > Just forgot to mention - I don' think it is good idea to disallow secondary > process to set theowner.
I think we all agree on that. My initial suggestion was to use the ownership in secondary processes. I think Matan forbid it as a first step because there is no multi-process synchronization currently. > Let say in secondary process I have few tap/ring/pcap devices. > Why it shouldn't be allowed to unite them under bonding device and make that > device to own them? > That's why I think get/set owner better to be atomic. > If the owner is just a pointer - in that case get operation will be atomic by > nature, > set could be implemented just by CAS. It would be perfect. Can we be sure that the atomic will work perfectly on shared memory? On every architectures?
