Confirm if rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify should be experimental

Confirm if rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify should be experimental

[Ben Magistro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

This may simply be a docs and signature mismatch (or macro wasn't available
at the time, didn't check that aspect) but the function
rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify() is marked as experimental in the signature
but not in the associated function comments (doxygen).  Should this
function be considered experimental and the docs section updated or is this
considered a stable function and the signature should updated?

Introduced in
https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210630135158.8108-4-olivier.matz@6wind.com/


Thanks,

Ben Magistro

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 751 bytes --]

Re: Confirm if rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify should be experimental

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 5/26/2022 10:39 PM, Ben Magistro wrote:
> [CAUTION: External Email]
> This may simply be a docs and signature mismatch (or macro wasn't 
> available at the time, didn't check that aspect) but the function 
> rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify() is marked as experimental in the 
> signature but not in the associated function comments (doxygen).  Should 
> this function be considered experimental and the docs section updated or 
> is this considered a stable function and the signature should updated?
> 
> Introduced in 
> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210630135158.8108-4-olivier.matz@6wind.com/ 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Magistro

Hi Ben,

It looks like API is still experimental but doxygen comment is not 
added, if Oliver agrees it can be an option to remove the experimental 
tag at this stage of the API.