From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646D1A2F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:44:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2017 02:44:15 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,160,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="58419677" Received: from dwdohert-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.1.85]) ([10.252.1.85]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2017 02:44:13 -0800 To: Thomas Monjalon , Declan Doherty References: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> Cc: dev@dpdk.org From: "Doherty, Declan" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:44:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] crypto drivers in the API 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:44:16 -0000 On 13/02/2017 1:25 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > In the crypto API, the drivers are listed. > In my opinion, it is a wrong designed and these lists should be removed. > Do we need a deprecation notice to plan this removal in 17.05, while > working on bus abstraction? > ... > Hey Thomas, I agree that these need to be removed, and I had planned on doing this for 17.05 but I have a concern on the requirements for ABI breakage in relation to this. This enum is unfortunately used in both the rte_cryptodev and rte_crypto_sym_session structures which are part of the libraries public API. I don't think it would be feasible to maintain a set of 17.02 compatible APIs with the changes this would introduce, as it would require a large number of functions to have 2 versions? Is it OK to break the ABI for this case?