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.
Ray K
