Hi Jerin,
Thinking of another approach for this patch.
Instead of changing all create APIs, update
rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create_ext() alone with additional parameters.
rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create() and
rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create_with_params() APIs will be untouched.
How about this approach?
-Harish
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:37 PM
> To: Naga Harish K, S V <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheert...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eventdev/eth_rx: update adapter create APIs
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 1:09 PM Naga Harish K, S V
> <s.v.naga.haris...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jerin,
> > As per DPDK Guidelines, API changes or ABI breakage is allowed during
> > LTS
> releases
> >
> > (https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html#abi-breakage
> > s)
>
> Yes. Provided if depreciation notice has sent, approved and changes absolutely
> needed.
>
> >
> > Also, there are previous instances where API changes happened, some of them
> are mentioned below.
>
> These are not the cases where existing APIs removed and changed prototype to
> cover up the removed function.
>
> >
> > In DPDK 22.11, the cryptodev library had undergone the following API
> changes.
> > * rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create() and
> rte_cryptodev_asym_session_create() API parameters changed.
> > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_free() and rte_cryptodev_asym_session_free()
> API parameters changed.
> > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init() and rte_cryptodev_asym_session_init()
> APIs are removed.
> >
> > * eventdev: The function ``rte_event_crypto_adapter_queue_pair_add`` was
> updated
> > to accept configuration of type ``rte_event_crypto_adapter_queue_conf``
> > instead of ``rte_event``,
> > similar to ``rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add`` signature.
> > Event will be one of the configuration fields,
> > together with additional vector parameters.
> >
> > Applications have to change to accommodate the above API changes.
> >
> > As discussed earlier, fewer adapter-create APIs are useful for the
> > application
> design.
> > Please let us know your thoughts on the same.
>
>
> mempool have different variants of create API. IMO, Different variants of
> _create API is OK and application can pick the correct one based on the
> needed.
> It is OK to break the API prototype if absolutely needed, in this case it is
> not.
