>> 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?
I believe - yes, how otherwise rte_ring and rte_mbuf would work for MP? :) Konstantin
