On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 03:07:28PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/01/2018 14:57, Neil Horman: > > > > I specifically pointed that out above. There is no reason an owernship > > > > record > > > > couldn't be added to the rte_eth_dev structure. > > > > > > Sorry, don't understand why. > > > > > Because, thats the resource your trying to protect, and the object you want > > to > > identify ownership of, no? > > No > The rte_eth_dev structure is the port representation in the process. > The rte_eth_dev_data structure is the port represenation across multi-process. > The ownership must be in rte_eth_dev_data to cover multi-process protection. > Ok. You get the idea though right? That the port representation, for some definition thereof, should embody the ownership state. Neil
> > >
