[dpdk-dev] Should we disallow running secondaries after primary has died?

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:53:58 +0100
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote:

> > 
> > NP to disallow it.
> > In fact, I think it would be easier for everyone just to drop current DPDK MP model,
> > and keep just standalone DPDK instances.  
> 
> That's the dream, but i don't think it'll ever come to fruition, at 
> least not without a huge push from the community.

There are several net appliances that require primary/secondary model.
I think initially during DPDK development it was sold as a feature to the
Network vendors.

It might be possible to clamp down on what API's are supported by
secondary process. For example, disallowing any control operations start/stop etc.