On 1/19/2018 6:10 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/01/2018 18:37, Neil Horman: >> 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 > > Yes we agree. > And I think it is what Matan did. > The owner is in struct rte_eth_dev_data:
Hi Thomas, Neil, Sorry I did not able to this thred, is discussion concluded?
