Message ID | 20200626081638.29890-1-david.marchand@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5295BA0350; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:16:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997EC1B13C; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC28FF04 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:16:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1593159409; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AZoBYfNNLAIwZfTbK1sCQ8LVs+B1Rc4HQcNPBHsGT/Y=; b=Zl+ng6pZ5cIpZli1kpqJA5mIzt8dy+8ErvA/899k8fmY8yS5AaeSjrylGc7vCiF47G04AO t3FVKugjHKXa8IuonGQyymtkCDojAeNwqoXOdWJKHyM9ir++HRnb7dbVnaM72TR/I/PfuZ +NFeuQZGouleB/tffRaWfwB4GcmqmuI= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-33-QHx9xjUENt6AHLAclrMkqA-1; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 04:16:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: QHx9xjUENt6AHLAclrMkqA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB66D107ACCA; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dmarchan.remote.csb (unknown [10.40.193.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224E75D9D3; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:16:42 +0000 (UTC) From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: thomas@monjalon.net, honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, techboard@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:16:35 +0200 Message-Id: <20200626081638.29890-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20200522065855.31056-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <20200522065855.31056-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=david.marchand@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] Experimental/internal libraries cleanup X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Series |
Experimental/internal libraries cleanup
|
|
Message
David Marchand
June 26, 2020, 8:16 a.m. UTC
Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. Two notes: - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this intentional? - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). Their fate must be discussed. Changes since v2: - added librte_graph and librte_node missed when rebasing to 20.05, Changes since v1: - rebased on master, - removed mention of 0 version in abi docs, - updated wording in experimental banner and abi docs following Honnappa comment,
Comments
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:16:35AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here > is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. > > Two notes: > > - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this > intentional? > - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are > announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 > stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). > Their fate must be discussed. > > Changes since v2: > - added librte_graph and librte_node missed when rebasing to 20.05, > > Changes since v1: > - rebased on master, > - removed mention of 0 version in abi docs, > - updated wording in experimental banner and abi docs following Honnappa > comment, > > > -- > David Marchand > > David Marchand (3): > build: remove special versioning for non stable libraries > drivers: drop workaround for internal libraries > lib: remind experimental status in library headers > The build changes, and patchset as a whole, look ok to me and good to see the code simplified by this. Series-acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
+Cc maintainers of the problematic libraries: - librte_fib - librte_rib - librte_gro - librte_member - librte_rawdev 26/06/2020 10:16, David Marchand: > Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here > is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. > > Two notes: > > - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this > intentional? Vladimir please, could you fix the miss in the doxygen index? > - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are > announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 > stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). > Their fate must be discussed. I would suggest removing EXPERIMENTAL flag for gro, member and rawdev. They are probably already considered stable for a lot of users. Maintainers, are you OK to follow the ABI compatibility rules for these libraries? Do you feel these libraries are mature enough?
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > +Cc maintainers of the problematic libraries: > - librte_fib > - librte_rib > - librte_gro > - librte_member > - librte_rawdev > > 26/06/2020 10:16, David Marchand: > > Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here > > is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. > > > > Two notes: > > > > - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this > > intentional? > > Vladimir please, could you fix the miss in the doxygen index? > > > - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are > > announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 > > stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). > > Their fate must be discussed. > > I would suggest removing EXPERIMENTAL flag for gro, member and rawdev. > They are probably already considered stable for a lot of users. > Maintainers, are you OK to follow the ABI compatibility rules > for these libraries? Do you feel these libraries are mature enough? > I think things being added to the official ABI is good. For these, I wonder if waiting till the 20.11 release is the best time to officially mark them as stable, rather than doing so now?
06/07/2020 10:02, Bruce Richardson: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 09:55:41PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > +Cc maintainers of the problematic libraries: > > - librte_fib > > - librte_rib > > - librte_gro > > - librte_member > > - librte_rawdev > > > > 26/06/2020 10:16, David Marchand: > > > Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here > > > is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. > > > > > > Two notes: > > > > > > - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this > > > intentional? > > > > Vladimir please, could you fix the miss in the doxygen index? > > > > > - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are > > > announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 > > > stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). > > > Their fate must be discussed. > > > > I would suggest removing EXPERIMENTAL flag for gro, member and rawdev. > > They are probably already considered stable for a lot of users. > > Maintainers, are you OK to follow the ABI compatibility rules > > for these libraries? Do you feel these libraries are mature enough? > > > > I think things being added to the official ABI is good. For these, I wonder > if waiting till the 20.11 release is the best time to officially mark them > as stable, rather than doing so now? They are already not marked as experimental symbols... I think we should remove confusion in the MAINTAINERS file.
On 05/07/2020 20:55, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > +Cc maintainers of the problematic libraries: > - librte_fib > - librte_rib > - librte_gro > - librte_member > - librte_rawdev > > 26/06/2020 10:16, David Marchand: >> Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here >> is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. >> >> Two notes: >> >> - RIB/FIB library is not referenced in the API doxygen index, is this >> intentional? > Vladimir please, could you fix the miss in the doxygen index? Sure, I'll send a patch. > >> - I inspected MAINTAINERS: librte_gro, librte_member and librte_rawdev are >> announced as experimental while their functions are part of the 20 >> stable ABI (in .map files + no __rte_experimental marking). >> Their fate must be discussed. > I would suggest removing EXPERIMENTAL flag for gro, member and rawdev. > They are probably already considered stable for a lot of users. > Maintainers, are you OK to follow the ABI compatibility rules > for these libraries? Do you feel these libraries are mature enough? > > >
26/06/2020 11:25, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:16:35AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > Following discussions on the mailing list and the 05/20 TB meeting, here > > is a series that drops the special versioning for non stable libraries. > > [...] > The build changes, and patchset as a whole, look ok to me and good to see > the code simplified by this. > > Series-acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Applied, thanks