On 01/09/2021 12:13, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 17:02
>> To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: m...@ashroe.eu; tho...@monjalon.net
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/3] net/ixgbe: promote some API to stable
>>
>> On 9/1/2021 6:07 AM, Haiyue Wang wrote:
>>> The DPDK Symbol Bot reports:
>>> Please note the symbols listed below have expired. In line with the
>>> DPDK ABI policy, they should be scheduled for removal, in the next
>>> DPDK release.
>>>
>>> Symbol
>>> rte_pmd_ixgbe_mdio_lock
>>> rte_pmd_ixgbe_mdio_unlock
>>> rte_pmd_ixgbe_mdio_unlocked_read
>>> rte_pmd_ixgbe_mdio_unlocked_write
>>> rte_pmd_ixgbe_upd_fctrl_sbp
>>
>> I wonder if we should keep PMD specific APIs as experimental (Not talking
>> about
>> mbuf 'dynfield' / 'dynflag' APIs, we can promote them).
>
> Yes, makes sense.
>
>>
>> If an application is using PMD specific API, not sure if it will concern
>> about
>> PMD specific APIs.
>> And keeping PMD specific APIs lets us remove them as soon as we can, also
>> adds
>> additional discourage for users to use them.
>
> Can update this to DPDK ABI Policy, section 3.5.3.
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/abi_policy.html
I understand and agree.
However we never made any exceptions for PMD specific APIs in the policy.
Leave them as experimental for the moment.
I will add a clause to the policy ....
Thomas / David - any opinion?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
>>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
