19/01/2018 14:30, Neil Horman: > So it seems like the real point of contention that we need to settle here is, > what codifies an 'owner'. Must it be a specific execution context, or can we > define any arbitrary section of code as being an owner? I would agrue against > the latter.
This is the first thing explained in the cover letter: "2. The port usage synchronization will be managed by the port owner." There is no intent to manage the threads synchronization for a given port. It is the responsibility of the owner (a code object) to configure its port via only one thread. It is consistent with not trying to manage threads synchronization for Rx/Tx on a given queue.
