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 C43C5A0C55; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DB5410DA; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA71140150 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F07F5C005E; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 05:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 05:49:39 -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= 3jvkoM+Z6CyIc88xcIwFnu7B73EPx0AKiwTLsPQMmNo=; b=Zeaj+iz9Hy5mjasP ctTD0bHwpn5jEESKVWq5yMlMLvWTdZIs3jE85W4EeqAgGIF5JvviwdNRvEYnOaA5 YZO7ioCwvQ0vGwfuigV02Q708teb0fEBk0NPWSUq+2D4WjffreJHO/r40Hpnlehb 7MPWMPpllvwlbjb0oDiKT/4jVJ+GXBCU4gBkzSL3JZE2Bm8cWNjOm9FAdf0tAlS8 8leshDgkrrdEospT7KpdOBq330TjxoE24VUKUo9+KQvb23bvcX8I00DR1CF53D9m 6SVOPUJFK0IXpDxM1nxQJOqTRCFG8+Qy2f7Sq2YIZWiH+jVIcycjNlJv9nBmyTX9 biRmvQ== 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=3jvkoM+Z6CyIc88xcIwFnu7B73EPx0AKiwTLsPQMm No=; b=jXGKvhPJTdc7Flc7ynujmJ2+LcQMOeBUjm3rFNZ1dRqjrmMobFxul2Vpa Ze0EmVBhyepqoqgjzSCuGfMXITl0RiZOYBpmynsvoJPFhxH8OD3zpHM0YW+CELMG HvBlq7L2CoHroh49ByYQSQ2fxl1uqjum5o9pZVqU8RGuTfC71GWIAF4oDpKDXIby Ws2BhF93J1NhhY7R5skiE5lOT/MJ8wMxjUAz1b9zGHiKJbXq40+yU4w2QVHwx2QQ M7AmM1R25hDj2haZ6S6+m4QEQ8Mj84GxPcezlJz7gaXFH4azE9HUGOMjocMbXTdO n6NcQoCnqxlVETnxxczDhrAO6EAVg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddutddgudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 05:49:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , "Kinsella, Ray" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:49:35 +0200 Message-ID: <54472851.rRM0y284jX@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210901122007.3885050-1-jasvinder.singh@intel.com> <1667999.ADG73FIASF@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pipeline: remove experimental tag from API 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" 13/10/2021 11:43, Kinsella, Ray: > On 13/10/2021 10:40, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/10/2021 10:51, Kinsella, Ray: > >> On 12/10/2021 22:52, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 12/10/2021 22:34, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > >>>> From: Thomas Monjalon > >>>>> 01/09/2021 14:20, Jasvinder Singh: > >>>>>> These APIs were introduced in 18.05, therefore removing > >>>>>> experimental tag to promote them to stable state. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jasvinder Singh > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> lib/pipeline/rte_port_in_action.h | 10 ---------- > >>>>>> lib/pipeline/rte_table_action.h | 18 ------------------ > >>>>>> lib/pipeline/version.map | 16 ++++++---------- > >>>>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> Cristian, please can you check whether you intend to keep these functions in > >>>>> future? > >>>>> If they are candidate to be removed, there is no point to promote them. > >>>> > >>>> Hi Thomas, > >>>> > >>>> Yes, they are candidate for removal, as the new rte_swx_pipeline API evolves. > >>>> > >>>> But removing them requires updating the drivers/net/softnic code to use the new API, which is not going to be completed in time for release 21.11. > >>>> > >>>> So given this lag, it might be better to simply promote these functions to stable API now, as Ray suggests, instead of continuing to keep them experimental; then, once these functions are no longer used, then we can remove them, most likely in 22.11. > >>>> > >>>> So I will ack these patches, but I am willing to reconsider if you feel strongly against this approach. > >>> > >>> I think we should not promote API that we know will disappear soon. > >>> The stable status means something for the users. > >>> Ray, what is your opinion? > >>> > >> > >> Well - I agree with Cristian (he and I discuss this a few weeks ago). > >> My position is if you are going to maintain an API, that means giving a few guarantees. > >> The API's have been experimental for 3 years ... at what point do they mature? > >> > >> However, I agree there is two ways to look at this thing, I try to be pragmatic. > >> Maturing of any ABI/API is a conversation between a maintainer and the contributor. > >> If they strongly feel, it is a pointless exercise - I won't argue. > > > > I think you did't get it. > > This API will be removed soon. > > That's why I think it doesn't make sense to make them stable, just before removing. > > > > Nope, I got it 110% > I reflected both my opinion as ABI Maintainer, and tried to be pragmatic about the situation. > > As I said "Maturing of any ABI/API is a conversation between a maintainer and the contributor. > If they strongly feel, it is a pointless exercise - I won't argue." Sorry, I don't understand your position. Do you think we should promote functions to stable which are candidate to be removed soon?