RE: [PATCH v2] eventdev/eth_rx: update adapter create APIs

["Naga Harish K, S V" <s.v.naga.harish.k@intel.com>]

Hi Jerin,
     Thinking of another approach for this patch.
Instead of changing all create APIs,  update rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create_ext() alone with additional parameters.
rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create() and rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create_with_params() APIs will be untouched.

How about this approach?

-Harish

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:37 PM
> To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.harish.k@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eventdev/eth_rx: update adapter create APIs
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 1:09 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> <s.v.naga.harish.k@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jerin,
> >      As per DPDK Guidelines, API changes or ABI breakage is allowed during LTS
> releases
> >
> > (https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-breakage
> > s)
> 
> Yes. Provided if depreciation notice has sent, approved and changes absolutely
> needed.
> 
> >
> > Also, there are previous instances where API changes happened, some of them
> are mentioned below.
> 
> These are not the cases where existing APIs removed and changed prototype to
> cover up the removed function.
> 
> >
> >    In DPDK 22.11, the cryptodev library had undergone the following API
> changes.
> > * rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create() and
> rte_cryptodev_asym_session_create() API parameters changed.
> >    rte_cryptodev_sym_session_free() and rte_cryptodev_asym_session_free()
> API parameters changed.
> >    rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init() and rte_cryptodev_asym_session_init()
> APIs are removed.
> >
> > * eventdev: The function ``rte_event_crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add`` was
> updated
> >    to accept configuration of type ``rte_event_crypto_adapter_queue_conf``
> >    instead of ``rte_event``,
> >    similar to ``rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add`` signature.
> >    Event will be one of the configuration fields,
> >    together with additional vector parameters.
> >
> >  Applications have to change to accommodate the above API changes.
> >
> > As discussed earlier, fewer adapter-create APIs are useful for the application
> design.
> > Please let us know your thoughts on the same.
> 
> 
> mempool have different variants of create API. IMO, Different variants of
> _create API is OK and application can pick the correct one based on the needed.
> It is OK to break the API prototype if absolutely needed, in this case it is not.