quoted

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.

quoted

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?

I believe - yes, how otherwise rte_ring and rte_mbuf would work for MP? :)
Konstantin