13/10/2021 11:43, Kinsella, Ray: > On 13/10/2021 10:40, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 13/10/2021 10:51, Kinsella, Ray: > >> 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. > > > > I think you did't get it. > > This API will be removed soon. > > That's why I think it doesn't make sense to make them stable, just before > > removing. > > > > Nope, I got it 110% > I reflected both my opinion as ABI Maintainer, and tried to be pragmatic > about the situation. > > As I said "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."
Sorry, I don't understand your position. Do you think we should promote functions to stable which are candidate to be removed soon?
