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 13EFCA00E6 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:14:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377631BDFA; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:14:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23751BDF7 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:14:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579C720D84; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 06:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Aug 2019 06:14:46 -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=mesmtp; bh=HULll6vovV04o7PfvAzLxrw/Y6OP19wL+Limd5BN0tI=; b=JLAY/qJHuG5V A3zc1I8KILLkzdlzRHVrCrZHxiGiex/AKKp9fuTIncdg6qFvnsfBpoYYcBLMe19V aVSAYBsPg07ZfUbu+0WaWgCal/6QPXxikXVgQmtaGkm3i5yBfFN12Bv11ttPygK/ s/sO3tn/TaKBOrIV5jZAaqa74DX0B0s= 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=fm3; bh=HULll6vovV04o7PfvAzLxrw/Y6OP19wL+Limd5BN0 tI=; b=nOMAXaZB2CNUkya9nUk6NWEDhrBT7Rj++skNpf/OXLq91VX+gOnJ0hnOj syl2527DsE7wi91Dss2D+0pmR/Pg66/1baSkg11ebwUc6dtshNCXuDEV9sXsuAR4 LF19EsaG2CmpaFG+/xI1gzYH3Rs1GxCJ6eK//82wOBOydCK7yFI3P5UKZdLRBRvO 4VlL22GFrK+u3DP6UxVCeb3LjqP1d5HwYUxWasigKF9kKwzkDUBd4pWiXilNSMjU auoP0X3CIOB5/QfpDKhtdSMllHIUNq5X3A4etdm0RiMq9JsV5+Mx3+5XW+lc8e+1 mTVYLqwefmJh4Z6bkrZr74mlKRo0A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddruddtjedgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E56C8005A; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 06:14:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:14:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2677143.fGCan8KAsM@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190801124123.21591-1-thomas@monjalon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce API change in mbuf 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" 05/08/2019 10:05, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 8/1/19 3:41 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > In order to prepare for a long term stable API, the mbuf library > > has to change: allowing more features as dynamic fields, > > and fixing the lack of rte_ prefix in the namespace. > > The namespace fix should not break the compatibility by keeping > > some aliases during few releases to give time for migration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon [..] > > +* mbuf: Some fields will be moved or converted to dynamic API in DPDK 19.11 > > + in order to offer more space for the dynamic fields in future. > > + The namespace will be fixed at the same time while keeping a backward > > + compatibility for some time. > > The deprecation notice is better than nothing, but "some fields" is > hardly useful since it doe not provide enough information if an > application is affected or not. > > Also we have no yet information on performance impact of > switching to dynamic fields. > > May be it is not a problem if switching does not happen. > > I have no strong opinion, just trying to raise my concerns. > May be you already have answers on it. Unfortunately I don't have answers because I did not start this work. We will have to evaluate the impact and discuss what to move or not.