14/07/2022 17:03, Ferruh Yigit: > On 7/14/2022 3:50 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 7/14/2022 10:20 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 06:10:47PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >>> > >>> Announce the deprecation plan for KNI kernel module, library and > >>> example. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > >>> --- > >>> Squashed and updated 2 deprecations: > >>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211124171609.3101896-2-ferruh.yi...@intel.com/ > >>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211124171609.3101896-2-ferruh.yi...@intel.com/ > >>> --- > >> > >> One suggestion below. > >> With corrected link and with/without suggested change: > >> > >> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> > >> > >>> doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.rst | 3 +++ > >>> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 9 +++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.rst > >>> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.rst > >>> index e021cc69b6..03b5bca958 100644 > >>> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.rst > >>> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/kernel_nic_interface.rst > >>> @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ Kernel NIC Interface > >>> .. note:: > >>> + KNI is deprecated and will be removed in future. > >>> + See :doc:`../rel_notes/deprecation`. > >>> + > >>> For an alternative to KNI, that does not require any out-of-tree > >>> Linux kernel modules, > >>> or a custom library, see :ref:`virtio_user_as_exception_path`. > >>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >>> index 4e5b23c53d..e54597c591 100644 > >>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst > >>> @@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ Deprecation Notices > >>> in the header will not be considered as ABI anymore. This change > >>> is inspired > >>> by the RFC > >>> https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=17176. > >>> +* kni: The KNI kernel module and library are not recommended for use > >>> by new > >>> + applications - other technologies such as virtio-user are > >>> recommended instead. > >>> + The KNI kernel module and library will be removed from DPDK 23.11, > >>> + following the DPDK technical board > >>> + `decision > >>> <https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-January/197077.html>`_ > >>> + and `refinement > >>> <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2022-June/243596.html>`_. > >>> + The first steps are to add deprecation warnings > >>> + and to remove the example application from 22.11. > >>> + > >> > >> I wonder whether having this done as bullet points in chronological order > >> might be clearer. Something like: > >> > >> * kni: The KNI kernel module and library are not recommended for use > >> by new > >> applications - other technologies such as virtio-user are > >> recommended instead. > >> Following the DPDK technical board > >> `decision > >> <https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-January/197077.html>`_ > >> and `refinement > >> <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2022-June/243596.html>`_: > >> * The KNI example application will be removed from DPDK 22.11 release > >> * The KNI kernel module and library will be removed from the DPDK > >> 23.11 > >> release > > > > +1 to list actions in chronological order > > > > I have a concern with removing sample application without replacing one > > with alternate methods: virtio-user and tun/tap. > > > > It is easy to create a virtio-user PMD by testpmd or any sample > > application, and as far as I understand Bruce already documented this. > > But for many KNI users they are not using KNI PMD, so replacing KNI with > > this new method may require some hand holding. > > As mentioned KNI PMD, it also should be removed when library and module > are removed, may be good to list above to be explicit.
Yes I'm adding the PMD in removal list. > > One option can be hotplug the virtio-user PMD and use the port_id for > > packet forwarding, and I don't know if the PMD has APIs that > > applications can use directly, as done in KNI, @Maxime & @Chenbo can > > answer this better. > > > > It can be good to have a sample application for above before deprecating > > the KNI sample application. > > And same sample can use tun/tap PMD with a runtime parameter, to show > > how other example can be used, again tap can be used as tap PMD or Linux > > tun/tap APIs. > > > > Question is who can work on such a sample, but if we can find some > > resource I am for having a replacement exception path sample app before > > deprecating KNI. We are not sure we'll have time and resource, and it has not been discussed earlier. Thus I'll consider having a replacement example as a nice-to-have. I have to be a bit conservative with techboard decisions.
