On 13/10/2021 10:40, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
>
Nope, I got it 110%
I reflected both my opinion as ABI Maintainer, and tried to be pragmatic about
the situation.
As I said "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."
Ray K
