From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 12:53:36 +0100 Message-ID: <2265552.PIKhXtTqDC@xps> References: <1511870281-15282-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A12@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A55@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Matan Azrad , Neil Horman , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , "Wu, Jingjing" , dev@dpdk.org To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EFE2A5D for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:53:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772585FAC4A55@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/12/2017 12:44, Ananyev, Konstantin: > Just forgot to mention - I don' think it is good idea to disallow secondary process to set theowner. I think we all agree on that. My initial suggestion was to use the ownership in secondary processes. I think Matan forbid it as a first step because there is no multi-process synchronization currently. > Let say in secondary process I have few tap/ring/pcap devices. > Why it shouldn't be allowed to unite them under bonding device and make that device to own them? > That's why I think get/set owner better to be atomic. > If the owner is just a pointer - in that case get operation will be atomic by nature, > set could be implemented just by CAS. It would be perfect. Can we be sure that the atomic will work perfectly on shared memory? On every architectures?