From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40241A0C55; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:05:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0919341134; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:05:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8EC40E5A for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:05:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF66F32009BE; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:05:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= nGBKb+psLhIUt7c4ypmzoVmuqD78vJ59IxgAFLcutDY=; b=EvgUIiOH+8tFthMv 4FUmLGUZzaNLwBu6CDkWtKN78OPrj6+DZFUHpLtt8ifkD9IQRo3+mqbF2HpGa0Vi f9FIdODK9cOMc/lxHtokJBxZ/4xogO4YKFABjgAAj5aH4Wugqa4Mn9fZ8m/knrEJ liIG3xS2sidutS0CD3nkue/VT0qFtiHr2V4j0U+qQqSLEGN+REaXkXOWUl8NIHbr PcKO6+9LLlPlB38ZsfT2RslFyHEVgBEbjtWPOxBp8wm5JFr2r1y2WgaBALopwNFv R9BxZtEKls0YHNJnJIVjqpaDtq2h0GvNKNe44Rd9HEBs91WtoAkir4xBOvdiNNU5 ZQaHFQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=nGBKb+psLhIUt7c4ypmzoVmuqD78vJ59IxgAFLcut DY=; b=CfbsuXXr55JHKv7LTZJfzdX6JONOsXk49EldNTb+7i7yWAq/GeBB2H+vZ gywSx9g3DBuFzM/pxtfGAy9m0RZDu4TL6sojUoQtUqg6FDGbDXZDEYu81ZiJkhUv pd9slcLoVvcYh39xTAMraGaXBiTEgeNf0gINb7bw+lbvsh1PKvfscFovC6EsldHU SmeSJRe0nXxMhsqYn0hLQZK2SxcGg7/vBkKYowUNl1w6aM51jGRdvrzz3SK1UpLR AQk7hTsaKW48BruG2eMAs85QQR2UWdNZFMjrrYtL6Akk5oArj7fgESpilRO4ktvn nO+vUK3pV3xTf2eSId64MPiEPWsOQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrtdeigdejtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:05:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger , David Marchand , Olivier Matz Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 16:05:14 +0100 Message-ID: <2425969.3b2ZdX0MHy@thomas> In-Reply-To: <0db26ffd-1c1c-e920-0390-ee863862b071@oktetlabs.ru> References: <20211102234434.2639807-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2611380.4jmpmGm5TL@thomas> <0db26ffd-1c1c-e920-0390-ee863862b071@oktetlabs.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ethdev: mark old macros as deprecated X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 05/11/2021 14:40, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/4/21 3:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/11/2021 12:03, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 11/3/2021 10:48 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>> Old macros kept for backward compatibility, but this cause old macro > >>> usage to sneak in silently. > >>> > >>> Marking old macros as deprecated. Downside is this will cause some noise > >>> for applications that are using old macros. > >>> > >>> Fixes: 295968d17407 ("ethdev: add namespace") > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > >>> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger > >> > >> Hi Thomas, Andrew, > >> > >> What do you think about marking old macros as deprecated? > >> > >> This will cause warning in application code that is using > >> old macros, but shouldn't fail their build (unless -Werror > >> is issued). > > > > It looks to be the right thing to do. > > I wonder whether we could wait 22.02 to apply it, > > so users of LTS are not annoyed by it. > > I have no strong opinion, but tend to agree with Thomas. > However, if an application jumps from LTS to LTS, these > defines will be available in 21.11 without any warnings > and simply disappear in 22.11. So, may be it is more > friendly to deprecate in 21.11. That's true for a lot of deprecations done in the year. Jumping from LTS to LTS is for production. Intermediate releases should help in the upgrade preparation process.