doc: announce removal of old port count function
Checks
Commit Message
The function rte_eth_dev_count() was marked as deprecated in DPDK 18.05
in commit d9a42a69febf ("ethdev: deprecate port count function").
It is planned to be removed after the next LTS release.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Comments
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:48 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> The function rte_eth_dev_count() was marked as deprecated in DPDK 18.05
> in commit d9a42a69febf ("ethdev: deprecate port count function").
> It is planned to be removed after the next LTS release.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> ---
> doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> index e2721fad6..8d4d89a85 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ Deprecation Notices
>
> + ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count``
>
> +* ethdev: The function ``rte_eth_dev_count`` will be removed in DPDK
> 20.02.
> + It is replaced by the function ``rte_eth_dev_count_avail``.
> + If the intent is to iterate over ports, ``RTE_ETH_FOREACH_*`` macros
> + are better port iterators.
> +
> * vfio: removal of ``rte_vfio_dma_map`` and ``rte_vfio_dma_unmap`` APIs
> which
> have been replaced with ``rte_dev_dma_map`` and ``rte_dev_dma_unmap``
> functions. The due date for the removal targets DPDK 20.02.
> --
> 2.21.0
>
Out of curiosity (ok, not entirely, since I need to write some notices).
Is there a rule for the order in which those entries are written?
I can see a notice about ethdev later in the file.
Acked-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
04/06/2019 09:12, David Marchand:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:48 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ Deprecation Notices
> >
> > + ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count``
> >
> > +* ethdev: The function ``rte_eth_dev_count`` will be removed in DPDK
> > 20.02.
> > + It is replaced by the function ``rte_eth_dev_count_avail``.
> > + If the intent is to iterate over ports, ``RTE_ETH_FOREACH_*`` macros
> > + are better port iterators.
> > +
> > * vfio: removal of ``rte_vfio_dma_map`` and ``rte_vfio_dma_unmap`` APIs
> > which
> > have been replaced with ``rte_dev_dma_map`` and ``rte_dev_dma_unmap``
> > functions. The due date for the removal targets DPDK 20.02.
>
> Out of curiosity (ok, not entirely, since I need to write some notices).
> Is there a rule for the order in which those entries are written?
Yes the order should be the same as for the features in the release notes.
> I can see a notice about ethdev later in the file.
Indeed, ethdev is supposed to be after EAL,
it is my mistake.
> Acked-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
@@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ Deprecation Notices
+ ``rte_eal_devargs_type_count``
+* ethdev: The function ``rte_eth_dev_count`` will be removed in DPDK 20.02.
+ It is replaced by the function ``rte_eth_dev_count_avail``.
+ If the intent is to iterate over ports, ``RTE_ETH_FOREACH_*`` macros
+ are better port iterators.
+
* vfio: removal of ``rte_vfio_dma_map`` and ``rte_vfio_dma_unmap`` APIs which
have been replaced with ``rte_dev_dma_map`` and ``rte_dev_dma_unmap``
functions. The due date for the removal targets DPDK 20.02.