13/10/2021 10:51, Kinsella, Ray: > > On 12/10/2021 22:52, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 12/10/2021 22:34, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > >> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>> 01/09/2021 14:20, Jasvinder Singh: > >>>> These APIs were introduced in 18.05, therefore removing > >>>> experimental tag to promote them to stable state. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.si...@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> lib/pipeline/rte_port_in_action.h | 10 ---------- > >>>> lib/pipeline/rte_table_action.h | 18 ------------------ > >>>> lib/pipeline/version.map | 16 ++++++---------- > >>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> Cristian, please can you check whether you intend to keep these functions > >>> in > >>> future? > >>> If they are candidate to be removed, there is no point to promote them. > >> > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> Yes, they are candidate for removal, as the new rte_swx_pipeline API > >> evolves. > >> > >> But removing them requires updating the drivers/net/softnic code to use > >> the new API, which is not going to be completed in time for release 21.11. > >> > >> So given this lag, it might be better to simply promote these functions to > >> stable API now, as Ray suggests, instead of continuing to keep them > >> experimental; then, once these functions are no longer used, then we can > >> remove them, most likely in 22.11. > >> > >> So I will ack these patches, but I am willing to reconsider if you feel > >> strongly against this approach. > > > > I think we should not promote API that we know will disappear soon. > > The stable status means something for the users. > > Ray, what is your opinion? > > > > Well - I agree with Cristian (he and I discuss this a few weeks ago). > My position is if you are going to maintain an API, that means giving a few > guarantees. > The API's have been experimental for 3 years ... at what point do they mature? > > However, I agree there is two ways to look at this thing, I try to be > pragmatic. > Maturing of any ABI/API is a conversation between a maintainer and the > contributor. > If they strongly feel, it is a pointless exercise - I won't argue.
I think you did't get it. This API will be removed soon. That's why I think it doesn't make sense to make them stable, just before removing.
