Hi Gaetan From: Gaëtan Rivet, Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 12:33 PM > Hi Matan, > > Thanks for the patches. A remark however: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:45:50AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > Fail-safe PMD sub devices management is based on ethdev port > mechanism. > > So, the sub-devices management structures are exposed to other DPDK > > entities which may use them in parallel to fail-safe PMD. > > > > Use the new port ownership mechanism to avoid multiple managments of > > fail-safe PMD sub-devices. > > > > I think your implementation does not work with several fail-safe instances, > have you tested this configuration? >
Why not? Each instance calls to fs_eth_dev_create and there the unique owner id allocation is called. So, Any instance should get a unique owner id. > It should be possible for a user to create any number of fail-safe instances. > The minimum would be to allow for multiple fail-safe side-by-side, but ideally > it should also support a recursive > configuration: > > +-----------+ > |fail-safe | > | | > | | > +-+ +--+ > | | | | > | +-----------+ | > | | > +-------v----+ +-----v-----+ > |fail-safe | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > +-+ +-+ | | > | +------------+ | +-----------+ > | | > +-----v-----+ +-----v-----+ > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > +-----------+ +-----------+ > > If I am not mistaken on this, then you need to generate different owner-ids > for each fail-safe instances. > it is already done as I wrote above. > I suggest using the full fail-safe instance name, as they are already assured > to > be different from each other by the EAL, and you thus won't need to > generate IDs on the fly, as well as declare a global owner-id prefix. > The ID generation should be initiated by the DPDK entity itself(the fail-safe instance in this case). The prefix can be changed to the EAL full fail-safe instance name, but it is not must, because the owner IDs are different. > -- > Gaëtan Rivet > 6WIND
