[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 3/3] net/tap: allow secondary process to access primary device queues

[Raslan Darawsheh]

Hi Ferruh,

Yes seems I sent the wrong code I'm sending a V9 with proper code.

Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:02 PM
> To: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland at mellanox.com>; keith.wiles at intel.com
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; Shahaf
> Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>; Ori Kam <orika at mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] net/tap: allow secondary process to access
> primary device queues
> 
> On 10/17/2018 3:45 PM, Raslan Darawsheh wrote:
> > In the case the device is created by the primary process, the
> > secondary must request some file descriptors to attach the queues.
> > The file descriptors are shared via IPC Unix socket.
> >
> > Thanks to the IPC synchronization, the secondary process is now able
> > to do Rx/Tx on a TAP created by the primary process.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland at mellanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> >
> > ---
> >     v2:
> >        - translate file descriptors via IPC API
> >        - add documentation
> >     v3:
> >        - rabse the commit
> >        - use private static array for fd's to be local for each
> > process
> >
> >     v4:
> >        - removed TODO and FIXME tags
> >        - used strlcpy instead of strcpy
> >
> >     v5: rebase the commit on top of Alejandro Lucero patch for secondary
> >         process private pointer.
> >
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatc
> >
> hes.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F46185%2F&data=02%7C01%7Crasland%40me
> llanox.
> >
> com%7C402ffdbc4dba4780cf1508d63449e8dc%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d14
> 9256f4
> >
> 61b%7C0%7C0%7C636753889385487993&sdata=b3BlYqRNeU7uN0qvbXh
> 5%2BXP0u
> > 0ssna%2BvW5ARKjnJwAM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >     v6: reword the commit log
> >
> >     v7: rely on tap_device_count for registration
> >     v8: fix the fail recovery
> 
> The code is exact same with v7, perhaps send wrong branch/code ? (or
> testing your luck :)