> Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com> writes: > > > The functions rte_service_may_be_active(), > > rte_service_lcore_attr_get(), and rte_service_attr_reset_all() were > > introduced nearly a year ago in DPDK 18.08. They can be considered non- > experimental for the 19.08 release. > > > > rte_service_may_be_active() is used by eventdev and the sw PMD, and > > this commit allows them to not need any experimental API. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.e...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/event/sw/Makefile | 1 - > > drivers/event/sw/meson.build | 1 - > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_service.h | 15 +++------------ > > lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 6 +++--- > > lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 6 +++--- > > lib/librte_eventdev/Makefile | 1 - > > lib/librte_eventdev/meson.build | 1 - > > 7 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/event/sw/Makefile b/drivers/event/sw/Makefile > > index 81236a392..c6600e836 100644 > > --- a/drivers/event/sw/Makefile > > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/Makefile > > @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ include $(RTE_SDK)/mk/rte.vars.mk LIB = > > librte_pmd_sw_event.a > > > > # build flags > > -CFLAGS += -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API > > CFLAGS += -O3 > > CFLAGS += $(WERROR_FLAGS) > > # for older GCC versions, allow us to initialize an event using diff > > --git a/drivers/event/sw/meson.build b/drivers/event/sw/meson.build > > index 30d221647..985012219 100644 > > --- a/drivers/event/sw/meson.build > > +++ b/drivers/event/sw/meson.build > > @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause # Copyright(c) 2017 Intel > > Corporation > > > > -allow_experimental_apis = true > > I don't think you can remove these. There are still some experimental APIs > (f.e. the rename for rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data > marked that function as experimental and it will cause build breakage). > > Maybe I'm mis understanding it? It would be good to get verification from > Bruce whether that API should not be marked as experimental (it was just a > rename, so not sure...) - maybe that's a follow up for this patch? > > See: https://travis-ci.com/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/209722145 for an example > > The odd thing is I only see it on the clang builds - perhaps it's a missing > definition for the clang compiler. >
You're right, eventdev still uses that experimental API (which this patch is unrelated to). I tested this change with GCC (5.4.0) and it built without errors, which I took to mean no more experimental APIs were in use. That's concerning that GCC didn't catch it. At any rate, I'll correct this in v2. Thanks, Gage
