doc: scheduler API deprecation notice
Checks
Commit Message
This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes
in public API of the Scheduler PMD.
Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
---
doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Comments
27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes
> in public API of the Scheduler PMD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
> +* scheduler: The functions ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in 20.11 by
> + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes
> > in public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > ---
> > +* scheduler: The functions ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in 20.11 by
> > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>
I wonder how this patch got missed.
Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
06/08/2020 19:18, Akhil Goyal:
> > 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes
> > > in public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > +* scheduler: The functions ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in 20.11 by
> > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
> >
> > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> >
> I wonder how this patch got missed.
>
> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
Sorry it is missing an ack.
I see there are 3 ACKs: original (see the commit message) from Fan, then Thomas and Akhil.
This page: http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=11317
also shows it has 3 ACKs.
Can I ask why it didn't go into 20.08 then?
Adam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Saturday, 8 August, 2020 00:05
> To: Dybkowski, AdamX <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; Zhang, Roy Fan
> <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>; stephen@networkplumber.org; Burakov,
> Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; bluca@debian.org; Akhil Goyal
> <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: scheduler API deprecation notice
>
> 06/08/2020 19:18, Akhil Goyal:
> > > 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > > > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes in
> > > > public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > +* scheduler: The functions
> > > > +``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in
> > > > +20.11 by
> > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >
> > I wonder how this patch got missed.
> >
> > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
>
> Sorry it is missing an ack.
>
>
10/08/2020 11:47, Dybkowski, AdamX:
> I see there are 3 ACKs: original (see the commit message) from Fan, then Thomas and Akhil.
> This page: http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=11317
> also shows it has 3 ACKs.
Sorry I missed initial ack.
> Can I ask why it didn't go into 20.08 then?
Because it was completed late, I missed and nobody replied.
In general, I would like more support in last days of release,
to avoid such miss.
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 06/08/2020 19:18, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > > > > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes in
> > > > > public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > +* scheduler: The functions
> > > > > +``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in
> > > > > +20.11 by
> > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > >
> > > I wonder how this patch got missed.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> >
> > Sorry it is missing an ack.
Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes that are recommended and agreed
throughout DPDK do you think an exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:19 AM
> To: Dybkowski, AdamX <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>;
> stephen@networkplumber.org; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; bluca@debian.org;
> Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: scheduler API deprecation notice
>
> 10/08/2020 11:47, Dybkowski, AdamX:
> > I see there are 3 ACKs: original (see the commit message) from Fan, then Thomas and Akhil.
> > This page: http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=11317
> > also shows it has 3 ACKs.
>
> Sorry I missed initial ack.
>
> > Can I ask why it didn't go into 20.08 then?
>
> Because it was completed late, I missed and nobody replied.
>
> In general, I would like more support in last days of release,
> to avoid such miss.
>
>
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 06/08/2020 19:18, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > > > > > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes in
> > > > > > public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > +* scheduler: The functions
> > > > > > +``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in
> > > > > > +20.11 by
> > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > >
> > > > I wonder how this patch got missed.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > Sorry it is missing an ack.
>
>
10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
>
> Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes that are recommended and agreed
> throughout DPDK do you think an exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
That's a question for techboard.
PS: please avoid top-posting
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 10/08/2020 11:47, Dybkowski, AdamX:
> > > I see there are 3 ACKs: original (see the commit message) from Fan, then Thomas and Akhil.
> > > This page: http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=11317
> > > also shows it has 3 ACKs.
> >
> > Sorry I missed initial ack.
> >
> > > Can I ask why it didn't go into 20.08 then?
> >
> > Because it was completed late, I missed and nobody replied.
> >
> > In general, I would like more support in last days of release,
> > to avoid such miss.
> >
> >
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > 06/08/2020 19:18, Akhil Goyal:
> > > > > > 27/07/2020 11:41, Adam Dybkowski:
> > > > > > > This patch adds a deprecation notice about upcoming changes in
> > > > > > > public API of the Scheduler PMD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkowski@intel.com>
> > > > > > > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > +* scheduler: The functions
> > > > > > > +``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
> > > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
> > > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in
> > > > > > > +20.11 by
> > > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
> > > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
> > > > > > > + ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how this patch got missed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > Sorry it is missing an ack.
> >
> >
>
>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> > Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
> >
> > Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes that are recommended and agreed
> > throughout DPDK do you think an exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> > without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
>
> That's a question for techboard.
>
> PS: please avoid top-posting
>
My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume most
people use the online docs rather than building their own from the package,
therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online versions a few days
after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a little
latitude should be given! :-)
12/08/2020 11:52, Bruce Richardson:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> > > Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
> > >
> > > Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes that are recommended and agreed
> > > throughout DPDK do you think an exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> > > without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
> >
> > That's a question for techboard.
> >
> > PS: please avoid top-posting
> >
> My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
> deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume most
> people use the online docs rather than building their own from the package,
> therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online versions a few days
> after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
>
> Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
> changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a little
> latitude should be given! :-)
I agree
We need more opinions from other techboard members to make it a decision.
On 8/12/20 12:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/08/2020 11:52, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
>>>> Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
>>>>
>>>> Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes that are recommended and agreed
>>>> throughout DPDK do you think an exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
>>>> without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
>>>
>>> That's a question for techboard.
>>>
>>> PS: please avoid top-posting
>>>
>> My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
>> deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume most
>> people use the online docs rather than building their own from the package,
>> therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online versions a few days
>> after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
>>
>> Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
>> changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a little
>> latitude should be given! :-)
>
> I agree
>
> We need more opinions from other techboard members to make it a decision.
>
>
I agree too, let's give a bit more flexibility for the deprecation
notice.
Maxime
> -----Original Message-----
> From: techboard <techboard-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Maxime
> Coquelin
>
> On 8/12/20 12:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 12/08/2020 11:52, Bruce Richardson:
> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> >>>> Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes
> >>>> that are recommended and agreed throughout DPDK do you think an
> >>>> exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
> >>>
> >>> That's a question for techboard.
> >>>
> >>> PS: please avoid top-posting
> >>>
> >> My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
> >> deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume
> >> most people use the online docs rather than building their own from
> >> the package, therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online
> >> versions a few days after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
> >>
> >> Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
> >> changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a
> >> little latitude should be given! :-)
> >
> > I agree
> >
> > We need more opinions from other techboard members to make it a
> decision.
> >
> >
>
> I agree too, let's give a bit more flexibility for the deprecation notice.
>
> Maxime
+1
Hemant
12/08/2020 12:57, Hemant Agrawal:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techboard <techboard-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Maxime
> > Coquelin
> >
> > On 8/12/20 12:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 12/08/2020 11:52, Bruce Richardson:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > >>> 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> > >>>> Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes
> > >>>> that are recommended and agreed throughout DPDK do you think an
> > >>>> exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> > without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
> > >>>
> > >>> That's a question for techboard.
> > >>>
> > >>> PS: please avoid top-posting
> > >>>
> > >> My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
> > >> deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume
> > >> most people use the online docs rather than building their own from
> > >> the package, therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online
> > >> versions a few days after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
> > >>
> > >> Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
> > >> changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a
> > >> little latitude should be given! :-)
> > >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > > We need more opinions from other techboard members to make it a
> > decision.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree too, let's give a bit more flexibility for the deprecation notice.
> >
> > Maxime
>
> +1
> Hemant
I've applied the patch after 20.11-rc0.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:23:51 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 12/08/2020 12:57, Hemant Agrawal:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: techboard <techboard-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Maxime
> > > Coquelin
> > >
> > > On 8/12/20 12:22 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 12/08/2020 11:52, Bruce Richardson:
> > > >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 02:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > >>> 10/08/2020 13:49, Trahe, Fiona:
> > > >>>> Sorry about that Thomas, Akhil, we should have chased up acks sooner.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Given the proposed content of the patch, and the similar changes
> > > >>>> that are recommended and agreed throughout DPDK do you think an
> > > >>>> exception can be made and that this change can get into 20.11 even
> > > without the deprecation notice being in 20.08?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's a question for techboard.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PS: please avoid top-posting
> > > >>>
> > > >> My initial 2c is that we should allow this, and add the required
> > > >> deprecation notice to the online docs immediately. I would assume
> > > >> most people use the online docs rather than building their own from
> > > >> the package, therefore adding in a deprecation notice to the online
> > > >> versions a few days after a release should not be a major problem IMHO.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, given the fact that we have once-a-year at most to apply ABI
> > > >> changes, and this is the first time we are going this, so I think a
> > > >> little latitude should be given! :-)
> > > >
> > > > I agree
> > > >
> > > > We need more opinions from other techboard members to make it a
> > > decision.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree too, let's give a bit more flexibility for the deprecation notice.
> > >
> > > Maxime
> >
> > +1
> > Hemant
>
> I've applied the patch after 20.11-rc0.
I am ok with changing this for 20.11 since there aren't a lot of users of
this subsystem and the change should be API compatiable
@@ -142,3 +142,10 @@ Deprecation Notices
Python 2 support will be completely removed in 20.11.
In 20.08, explicit deprecation warnings will be displayed when running
scripts with Python 2.
+
+* scheduler: The functions ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_attach``,
+ ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slave_detach`` and
+ ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_slaves_get`` will be replaced in 20.11 by
+ ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_attach``,
+ ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_worker_detach`` and
+ ``rte_cryptodev_scheduler_workers_get`` accordingly.