On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:09:47PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/01/2018 15:32, Neil Horman: > > 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 > > Not sure to understand your question. > There is no real question here, only confirming that we are saying the same thing. I misspoke when I indicated ownership information should be embodied in rte_eth_dev rather than its shared data. But regardless, the concept is the same
Neil
