> > > -----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.
Not sure why it is needed? Why DPDK sample app can't use DPDK experimental API as it is, without some alternate code-path? > > > > 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. If we'll leave legacy code in 19.11, does it mean we'll have to support it for next 2 years (LTS cycle)? Konstantin
