Hi everyone, > > 25/01/2018 10:36, Matan Azrad: > > Gaetan, Konstantin, Thomas > > > > Any response to my suggestion below? > > > > From: Matan Azrad > > > Suggestion: > > > > > > 2 system owners. > > > APP_OWNER - 1. > > > NO_OWNER - 0. > > > > > > And allowing for more owners as now. > > > > > > 1. Every port creation will set the owner for NO_OWNER (as now). > > > 2. There is option for all dpdk entities to take owner of NO_OWNER ports > > > all > > > the time(as now). > > > 3. In some point in the end of EAL init: set all the NO_OWNER to > > > APP_OWNER(for V6).
What will happen if we have 2 (or more process) sharing the same device? How we will distinguish what APP_OWNER we are talking about? Shouldn't default_owner be unique per process? > > > 4. Change the old iterator to iterate over APP_OWNER ports(for V6). If I get it right it means no changes in tetpmd, correct? > > > > > > What do you think? > > Reminder for everybody: there is no issue if no hotplug. > There is a race condition with hotplug. > Hotplug is not managed by EAL yet, but there is a temporary hotplug > management in failsafe. > So until now, the issue is seen only with hotplug in failsafe. > > Your suggestion makes no change for applications, > and fix the ownership issue for failsafe. > And later, if an application wants to support generic hotplug properly > (when it will be generally available in DPDK), > the application should use the ownership API. > Right? > > I think it is a good compromise. I still think it would be good if future hotplug support will be transparent to existing apps (no/minimal changes). But I suppose we can discuss it later, when will have hotplug patches. Konstantin
