[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 06/24] ethdev: enable hotplug on multi-process

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 26-Jun-18 2:25 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:21 PM
>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; thomas at monjalon.net
>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
>> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>> <benjamin.h.shelton at intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>> <narender.vangati at intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/24] ethdev: enable hotplug on multi-process
>>
>> On 26-Jun-18 1:58 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
>>>
>>> my understand is peer is identified by a string (or filename) what I
>>> mean is clone the content of the buffer that peer point to , So I
>>> don't need to worry if the original peer be used to point to some
>>> other data
>>>
>>
>> As far as the application is concerned, peer is an opaque pointer, and should
>> be treated as such. Peeking behind a void pointer that is not designed for this
>> purpose is not a good idea, even if technically you know what's in there.
> 
> We can expose a clone interface, like MP_PEER_CLONE, so we don't need to know what's inside, just need to know that it can be used on another thread?
> 

Well, that can probably work. Feels like a hacky workaround though.

Another way to do the same thing would be to store peer information 
right in the message, as opposed to providing it separately. Still a 
hack though, and will require far more changes, but it could be a better 
solution as (if done right) it would allow identifying which reply came 
from which peer.

Of course, an even better approach would be to devise some kind of 
addressing scheme (uuid?), so that peer addresses are no longer opaque 
pointers but rather are valid data types.

Thoughts?

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly