From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E75AA0487 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:26:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751871BFFA; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:26:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4679C1BEB6 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 11:26:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jul 2019 02:25:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,326,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="174181954" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2019 02:25:57 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.164]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:25:57 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Akhil Goyal , Thomas Monjalon CC: "Iremonger, Bernard" , "dev@dpdk.org" , Anoob Joseph , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path in ipsec-secgw Thread-Index: AQHVRiuUahjna7FP7EWKTttMwp/2XKbimaGAgAAUtQCAAAL6gIAACY0AgAAPIgCAAAJkgIAAAbeAgAAVFwA= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:25:57 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580168A5F46A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1562835937-24141-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <2417926.RaMoeEf8dU@xps> <2658214.f7z3ihukRQ@xps> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZmYxZTM3NmMtZjk0NC00NGFlLThhZTgtODlmMzAxMjkwNTUzIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiY050NGFRMHBsUHlkSFwvRUNjcFFxZ2ZKc2FmU1drSmRWXC9CdDA3bWIxXC95WjFYMFJZK1ZDV2Z2Q0Zrek1pNFB6UyJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path in ipsec-secgw X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:27 PM > > To: Akhil Goyal > > Cc: Bernard Iremonger ; dev@dpdk.org; Anoo= b > > Joseph ; konstantin.ananyev@intel.com; Jerin Jacob > > Kollanukkaran ; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path i= n ipsec- > > secgw > > > > 30/07/2019 10:48, Akhil Goyal: > > > > 30/07/2019 09:20, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > 30/07/2019 07:55, Akhil Goyal: > > > > > > > > > > > All the functionality of the legacy code path in now = available > > > > > > > > > > > in the librte_ipsec library. > > > > > > > > > > > It is planned to deprecate the legacy code path in th= e 19.11 > > > > > > > > > > > release and remove the legacy code path in the 20.02 = release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++ > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Anoob Joseph > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied to dpdk-next-crypto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we have a deprecation notice for some code path in a= n > > example? > > > > > > > > The deprecation notices are for the API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you can drop the legacy code in 19.11, > > > > > > > > and I don't merge this patch in master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are planning to remove the original code and replace it wi= th IPSec > > > > > > > library APIs which are still experimental. > > > > > > > With this change there won't be any example of the legacy ips= ec code > > path. > > > > > > > > That's good to drop old code. > > > > If someone still wants to look at it, it is in old releases. > > > > > > > > > > > Applications over DPDK take ipsec-secgw as an example and IPS= ec > > > > > > > is a major use case for customers. There may also be performa= nce > > > > > > > differences in the two code paths. Atleast on NXP platforms I= saw > > > > > > > 5-7% drop when the patches were originally submitted. > > > > > > > Not sure what is the current state. > > > > > > > > That's a different issue you need to solve in the library. > > > > > > > > > > > I feel it is worth notifying the users that the original code= path is > > > > > > > getting deprecated, so that they can plan to move to new IPSe= c APIs. > > > > > > > > I hope they already planned to move when they saw the new library. > > > > > > > > > > The deprecation notice is not the right place for a change in a= n example. > > > > > > What change is there in IPsec API? In which release? > > > > > > > > > > IPSec lib was introduced in 1902 release and a few enhancements > > > > > are done thereafter. > > > > > Previously all IPSec related stuff was done in the application, > > > > > now we have IPSec Lib which perform similar work. > > > > > There are changes both in datapath as well as control path. > > > > > User need to adapt to the recent changes, as we may no longer > > > > > support/maintain the datapath/control path which was done previou= sly > > > > > and there may be some conflict. > > > > > > > > So the real DPDK change is to have a new library in 19.02. > > > > > > > > > If deprecation notice is not the right place, > > > > > then where should it be notified before actually making the chang= e. > > > > > > > > It has already been notified in "New Features" of 19.02 > > > > that there is an IPsec library. What do you want to notify more? > > > > Again, the example is not supposed to be a real application. > > > > If you want to maintain an IPsec application with better quality ru= les, > > > > I suggest to start a new git repository for it. > > > > > > OK got your point, but in that case, I would say, legacy code shall n= ot be > > removed > > > Until we have the ipsec lib as experimental. > > > User should have both the code paths as long as we have ipsec library > > experimental. Not sure why it is needed? Why DPDK sample app can't use DPDK experimental API as it is, without some alternate code-path? > > > > That's your take. > > When do you plan to remove experimental status of IPsec library? > > > There have been addition of some functionality in this release cycle. I w= ould say we > can wait for 1 release cycle for some fixes or changes which may be requi= red. > If it looks stable in next release cycle, we can make formal in DPDK 2002= . If we'll leave legacy code in 19.11, does it mean we'll have to support it for next 2 years (LTS cycle)? Konstantin =20