Hi,

I notice that from the start, I should not send the notice.. as the abi policy 
said:
For removing the experimental tag associated with an API, deprecation notice is 
not required.

Sorry for the mistake.
/Chenbo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Chenbo Xia
> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 1:00 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu>; Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>; Maxime
> Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: remove deprecation notice for vhost
> 
> Ten vhost APIs were announced to be stable and promoted in below
> commit, so remove the related deprecation notice.
> 
> Fixes: 945ef8a04098 ("vhost: promote some APIs to stable")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chenbo Xia <chenbo....@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 8 --------
>  1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index 4366015b01..4f7e95f05f 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -114,14 +114,6 @@ Deprecation Notices
>  * vhost: rename ``struct vhost_device_ops`` to ``struct
> rte_vhost_device_ops``
>    in DPDK v21.11.
> 
> -* vhost: The experimental tags of ``rte_vhost_driver_get_protocol_features``,
> -  ``rte_vhost_driver_get_queue_num``, ``rte_vhost_crypto_create``,
> -  ``rte_vhost_crypto_free``, ``rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests``,
> -  ``rte_vhost_crypto_finalize_requests``, ``rte_vhost_crypto_set_zero_copy``,
> -  ``rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa``, ``rte_vhost_extern_callback_register``,
> -  and ``rte_vhost_driver_set_protocol_features`` functions will be removed
> -  and the API functions will be made stable in DPDK 21.11.
> -
>  * cryptodev: Hide structures ``rte_cryptodev_sym_session`` and
>    ``rte_cryptodev_asym_session`` to remove unnecessary indirection between
>    session and the private data of session. An opaque pointer can be exposed
> --
> 2.17.1

Reply via email to