From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Doherty, Declan" Subject: Re: crypto drivers in the API Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:44:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Declan Doherty Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646D1A2F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:44:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1522880.cuOTJ3FilR@xps13> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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?