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 1F6FBA058A; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:56:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F376E1E8D0; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:56:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A361E8C4 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:56:18 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1587131777; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AIIiNEywjEWDzcd9L62uqkQmWQP+Z9IoheBt6F2UhMs=; b=VY9r19EaLljmN951m6B8rT2SObBIxbv12zzRiOScbkFGLtuvS31x41VMWgdUZ+gzenjRt8 LVzjwA6xXxlJqLxE0Ju3uqwrXGFzlJc2sy1pn70qs1bYFA8DkbU8upUrKPmzIAq6h8X+Fk QbmQgMxjL0riYqqac1MO2zUZ95mOXnY= Received: from mail-ua1-f69.google.com (mail-ua1-f69.google.com [209.85.222.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-68-F9EgLy8zPY6a4WuGNdo0tQ-1; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:56:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: F9EgLy8zPY6a4WuGNdo0tQ-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f69.google.com with SMTP id y11so921359uaq.4 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:56:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ocgH+1TEzFKSUO5e35/yC5ZnzHd7XdNOGOHGllDWx2U=; b=QqFTly+0eenc2apeUoZ1NNAS2MlvMCYrnkREo5NrUbwfZ/ZWwQY8zjaQtKkFlH0XFe FS25FaniYuZjWabphKbu+ZyURP9NiIAzwKGVROJL1LAQZDKooyS6D3dGnXcljDP8It7k JjyMJPhr8Lfc5+bJwRbpHj0PX45rZNa7MJNbfF4n6gAEuP0PpOiYnyYfAFAjvAEeBVyg fMHZR8hd5TmbsBdcfgHFoC3kIO82usnxhe4C8WQyKKXorMuF+jSnUN+LlW9Tx+8Q5G5O CqSyQrzinKmnc9exA3GPxt3V/nDdDywhKS0PGVBxzPT+B837qt6puUZI+ErqomKj3sT9 okWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub/2I4qO5z8kjf5Jh+fnMq+3/C9Sc6sZImRddYD3rbJGXoGLRlE WgYxK2wjMgwgC18R9LeFOYgg6MyEmIi6KZLDf0z3IJ1JOKjDwvDmicqsYzW3GSiQD7il9qTdwAd 4DJB2RC7I1AiP+OHnAzM= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2204:: with SMTP id 4mr2384797uad.87.1587131775635; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:56:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJrZdEHX8i417su3n8U7cB87rGNjNUE1YSvWRgKKGesecHoHPJZp3fDAMdwoW4p6ur7pR5E4EDlwi0Gw/Y5MOs= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2204:: with SMTP id 4mr2384773uad.87.1587131775268; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:56:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200402183253.866-1-jerinjacobk@gmail.com> <20200413145530.8464-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:56:04 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Trahe, Fiona" Cc: dev , Jerin Jacob , Pavan Nikhilesh , "Richardson, Bruce" , Thomas Monjalon , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Hemant Agrawal X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] build: disable experimental API check internally 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" On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:44 PM Trahe, Fiona wrote: > > Hi David, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Marchand > > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 2:23 PM > > To: Trahe, Fiona > > Cc: dev ; Jerin Jacob ; Pavan Nikh= ilesh > > ; Richardson, Bruce ; Thomas Monjalon > > ; Yigit, Ferruh ; Hemant A= grawal > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] build: disable experimental API chec= k internally > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:21 PM Trahe, Fiona w= rote: > > > I see this is already applied. > > > > > > However, > > > rte_cryptodev_queue_pair_setup() calls > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_get_existing_header_session_size() > > > The former is a stable API, the latter is experimental. > > > So I expect the build to break when ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API is disable= d. > [Fiona] Thanks for confirming where the flag is. > But I think you've missed my point. > What about this problem? - dpdk-test-crypto-perf is built as part of the dpdk compilation itself. There is no user to be made aware of its use of experimental API. Now if you are talking about how the crypto API is bent in that it exposes a stable ABI with an underlying experimental ABI, this has nothing to do with the flag change. - But if you want to check crypto experimental api, then try to disable the flag in examples making use of them. --=20 David Marchand