From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Ray Kinsella <ray.kinsella@intel.com>,
"Traynor, Kevin" <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce malloc virt2phys symbol removal
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 17:13:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3963110.nb0tCvxbkm@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8w3H9=v53NJ4i1c3wyLQHzc6h9itPaP5HcTHqaXHmnaMg@mail.gmail.com>
05/08/2019 17:05, David Marchand:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > 02/08/2019 15:29, David Marchand:
> > > This symbol has been deprecated for quite some time.
> > > Let's drop it in the next release.
> > > ---
> > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > +* eal: The ``rte_malloc_virt2phy`` function has been deprecated and replaced
> > > + by ``rte_malloc_virt2iova`` since v17.11 and will be removed in DPDK 19.11.
> >
> > For this patch and another one about removing rte_cpu_check_supported(),
> > I have a general comment on the date of removal.
> >
> > As was stated recently in the contribution guide:
> > http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=7abe4a24cc
> > "Deprecated APIs are removed completely just after the next LTS."
> >
> > The idea behind this policy is to avoid removals during LTS releases,
> > in order to have at least one release before X.11 LTS for end users
> > to prepare replacing the usage of the removed API.
> >
> > Does it make sense to postpone any API removal after 19.11?
>
> Those symbols have been marked as deprecated for a long time.
> Users had to either disable Werror or they actually migrated to the new apis.
> If they chose the lazy way of not migrating to the new apis, I suspect
> they forgot about it and/or they won't look at the release notes.
Yes I agree.
That's why they can be surprised when hitting the removal.
Avoiding this removal in LTS release is one more care for
the lazy users. The question: is too much caution?
> I don't particularly have a problem with waiting for 20.02, those are
> easy to remove anyway.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-05 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-02 13:29 David Marchand
2019-08-02 16:04 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2019-08-02 16:10 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-08-05 14:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-08-05 15:05 ` David Marchand
2019-08-05 15:13 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-08-12 10:42 ` Kinsella, Ray
2019-08-06 13:50 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-08-06 14:00 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-08-08 9:32 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " David Marchand
2019-08-08 15:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3963110.nb0tCvxbkm@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ktraynor@redhat.com \
--cc=ray.kinsella@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).