[v3,0/3] Experimental/internal libraries cleanup

  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,
  

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