[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership

[Thomas Monjalon]

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:

@@ -1789,6 +1798,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_data {
        int numa_node;  /**< NUMA node connection */
        struct rte_vlan_filter_conf vlan_filter_conf;
        /**< VLAN filter configuration. */
+       struct rte_eth_dev_owner owner; /**< The port owner. */
 };