From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: crypto drivers in the API Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:04:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1704265.GvoO55czvH@xps13> References: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Doherty, Declan" , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com (mail-wr0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ECCA2F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:04:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id o16so167601981wra.1 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:04:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2017-02-14 10:44, Doherty, Declan: > On 13/02/2017 1:25 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > In the crypto API, the drivers are listed. > > In my opinion, it is a wrong designed and these lists should be removed. > > Do we need a deprecation notice to plan this removal in 17.05, while > > working on bus abstraction? > > > ... > > > > Hey Thomas, > I agree that these need to be removed, and I had planned on doing this > for 17.05 but I have a concern on the requirements for ABI breakage in > relation to this. This enum is unfortunately used in both the > rte_cryptodev and rte_crypto_sym_session structures which are part of > the libraries public API. I don't think it would be feasible to maintain > a set of 17.02 compatible APIs with the changes this would introduce, as > it would require a large number of functions to have 2 versions? Is it > OK to break the ABI for this case? Yes If you were planning to do this, you should have sent a deprecation notice few weeks ago. Please send it now and we'll see if we have enough supporters shortly.