From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E75AA0487
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; 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 <dev@dpdk.org>; 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" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
CC: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org"
 <dev@dpdk.org>, Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
 <jerinj@marvell.com>, Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya <pathreya@marvell.com>
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>
 <VE1PR04MB66397D21571ACAC27CB9E02FE6DC0@VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <2658214.f7z3ihukRQ@xps>
 <VE1PR04MB6639A3783E5C673508FF48CFE6DC0@VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB6639A3783E5C673508FF48CFE6DC0@VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:27 PM
> > To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > Cc: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Anoo=
b
> > Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>; konstantin.ananyev@intel.com; Jerin Jacob
> > Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > <pathreya@marvell.com>
> > 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
> > <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@inte=
l.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
> > > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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