> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:27 PM
> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
> Cc: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Anoob
> Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; konstantin.anan...@intel.com; Jerin Jacob
> Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathr...@marvell.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] doc: deprecate legacy code path in
> ipsec-
> secgw
>
> 30/07/2019 10:48, Akhil Goyal:
> > > 30/07/2019 09:20, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > 30/07/2019 07:55, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > > > > > > All the functionality of the legacy code path in now
> > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > in the librte_ipsec library.
> > > > > > > > > > It is planned to deprecate the legacy code path in the 19.11
> > > > > > > > > > release and remove the legacy code path in the 20.02
> > > > > > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger
> <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
> > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Applied to dpdk-next-crypto
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do we have a deprecation notice for some code path in an
> example?
> > > > > > > The deprecation notices are for the API.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think you can drop the legacy code in 19.11,
> > > > > > > and I don't merge this patch in master.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are planning to remove the original code and replace it with
> > > > > > IPSec
> > > > > > library APIs which are still experimental.
> > > > > > With this change there won't be any example of the legacy ipsec code
> path.
> > >
> > > That's good to drop old code.
> > > If someone still wants to look at it, it is in old releases.
> > >
> > > > > > Applications over DPDK take ipsec-secgw as an example and IPSec
> > > > > > is a major use case for customers. There may also be performance
> > > > > > differences in the two code paths. Atleast on NXP platforms I saw
> > > > > > 5-7% drop when the patches were originally submitted.
> > > > > > Not sure what is the current state.
> > >
> > > That's a different issue you need to solve in the library.
> > >
> > > > > > I feel it is worth notifying the users that the original codepath is
> > > > > > getting deprecated, so that they can plan to move to new IPSec APIs.
> > >
> > > I hope they already planned to move when they saw the new library.
> > >
> > > > > The deprecation notice is not the right place for a change in an
> > > > > example.
> > > > > What change is there in IPsec API? In which release?
> > > >
> > > > IPSec lib was introduced in 1902 release and a few enhancements
> > > > are done thereafter.
> > > > Previously all IPSec related stuff was done in the application,
> > > > now we have IPSec Lib which perform similar work.
> > > > There are changes both in datapath as well as control path.
> > > > User need to adapt to the recent changes, as we may no longer
> > > > support/maintain the datapath/control path which was done previously
> > > > and there may be some conflict.
> > >
> > > So the real DPDK change is to have a new library in 19.02.
> > >
> > > > If deprecation notice is not the right place,
> > > > then where should it be notified before actually making the change.
> > >
> > > It has already been notified in "New Features" of 19.02
> > > that there is an IPsec library. What do you want to notify more?
> > > Again, the example is not supposed to be a real application.
> > > If you want to maintain an IPsec application with better quality rules,
> > > I suggest to start a new git repository for it.
> >
> > OK got your point, but in that case, I would say, legacy code shall not be
> removed
> > Until we have the ipsec lib as experimental.
> > User should have both the code paths as long as we have ipsec library
> experimental.
>
> That's your take.
> When do you plan to remove experimental status of IPsec library?
>
There have been addition of some functionality in this release cycle. I would
say we
can wait for 1 release cycle for some fixes or changes which may be required.
If it looks stable in next release cycle, we can make formal in DPDK 2002.
