On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:02:02AM +0100, Kinsella, Ray wrote: > > > On 13/10/2021 10:49, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/10/2021 11:43, Kinsella, Ray: > >> 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." > > > > Sorry, I don't understand your position. > > Do you think we should promote functions to stable which are candidate to > > be removed soon? > > > > I am just reflecting the policy here. > > "An API’s experimental status should be reviewed annually, by both the > maintainer and/or the original contributor. Ordinarily APIs marked as > experimental will be promoted to the stable ABI once a maintainer has become > satisfied that the API is mature and is unlikely to change." > If an API is planned for removal, then I think it falls under the bucket of "likely to change", so should not be made non-experimental. Therefore I'd agree with Thomas view on this - not so much that promoting them is pointless, but I'd actually view it as harmful in encouraging use that will be broken in future.
/Bruce
