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 095B6A0C55; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:43:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2797410DA; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:43:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-108-mta51.mxroute.com (mail-108-mta51.mxroute.com [136.175.108.51]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A69A40150 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:43:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from filter004.mxroute.com ([149.28.56.236] filter004.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta51.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 17c7908ebcf0000b55.001 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:43:20 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 833508511f28dfe1096995889caa01567a7410f43539 X-Originating-IP: [149.28.56.236] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ashroe.eu; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6JnzUplvdgaKED96QgZBRlmoRVYLgiUztUvqmMO6L2U=; b=SAbHFAThdywRV+BkiGqxrov4d/ py2CKlz8ZvTAEmK+i/7b8gJfVDDRPT2EsfDeViSvtEdBisz/FwFh6GYYFssFJbTiA1erBJa2iQMZW TKV0YWIHkFnCixVWWpsaDz+OQQQO/dqSyg+H4r80p6rnf77TGSOY2gQSFPSkut5BKclZ/tPGY2nAi iKJcd+p9IdRtBGZc4ZDPclLrgVJ+8aHmepme5Lne5ywck7E6jFp9gSn8b/xGq/S93l0+c7QnKnvDN RUmcRFRp5UgYee/j4hAamh7fvH6xSni6+oK+/BwTps5/uTZ7GRLz2r7NUihWqTv407PjXAevB3hko 1pa7lJFg==; To: Thomas Monjalon , "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , david.marchand@redhat.com References: <20210901122007.3885050-1-jasvinder.singh@intel.com> <1673065.JLNdA3veM0@thomas> <1667999.ADG73FIASF@thomas> From: "Kinsella, Ray" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:43:16 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1667999.ADG73FIASF@thomas> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: mdr@ashroe.eu X-Zone-Spam-Resolution: no action X-Zone-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1, required=15, tests=[ARC_NA=0, TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME=0, FROM_HAS_DN=0, TO_DN_SOME=0, MIME_GOOD=-0.1, FROM_EQ_ENVFROM=0, MIME_TRACE=0, RCVD_COUNT_ZERO=0, RCPT_COUNT_FIVE=0, MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM=0, NEURAL_SPAM=0] 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" 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." Ray K