From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: crypto drivers in the API
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:47:45 +0100
Message-ID: <17300344.TzMtdF5J0D@xps13>
References: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> <1704265.GvoO55czvH@xps13>
 <18f43aad-8ae8-3549-aabb-fa7618b1c36a@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Pablo DeLara Guarch <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
To: "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com
 [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760029E7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:47:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o16so173102797wra.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:47:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <18f43aad-8ae8-3549-aabb-fa7618b1c36a@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2017-02-14 14:46, Doherty, Declan:
> On 14/02/2017 11:04 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 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?
> >>>
> >> ...
> >>>
> ...
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Thomas, there are a couple of other changes we are looking at in the 
> cryptodev which would require API changes as well as break ABI including 
> adding support for a multi-device sessions, and changes to crypto 
> operation layout and field changes for performance but these but will 
> require RFCs or at least more discussion of the proposals. Given the 
> time constrains for the V1 deadline for 17.05 I would prefer to work on 
> the RFCs and get them out as soon as possible over the next few weeks 
> and then make all the ABI breaking changes in R17.08 in a single release.
> 
> Otherwise we will end up breaking ABI 2 release in a row which I would 
> like to avoid if possible.

OK, seems good. Thanks