From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] DPDK techboard minutes of October 24 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:55:22 +0100 Message-ID: <2240482.x5FLNkSg3a@xps> References: <20181110091727.GA20155@jerin> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010CE49651@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> <20181112084353.506b2786@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: techboard@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Burakov, Anatoly" , Jerin Jacob , "dev@dpdk.org" To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181112084353.506b2786@xeon-e3> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 12/11/2018 17:43, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:36:45 +0000 > "Ananyev, Konstantin" wrote: > > From: Richardson, Bruce > > > From: techboard [mailto:techboard-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > Hi Anatoly, > > > > > > > > > > Meeting notes for the DPDK technical board meeting held on > > > > > > 2018-10-24 [...] > > > > > > 0) DPDK acceptance policy on un-implemented API > > > > > > - New APIs without implementation is not accepted. > > > > > > - In order to accept a new API, At minimum > > > > > > a) Need to provide an unit test case or example application > > > > > > b) If the API is about HW abstraction, at least one driver should be > > > > > > implemented. Preferably two. > > > > > > c) If there are strong objections on ML about the need for more than > > > > > > one driver for a specific API then the technical board can make a > > > > > > decision. > > > > > > - Konstantin volunteered to send existing un-implemented API to the > > > > > > mailing list. > > > > > > - The existing un-implemented APIs will be deprecated in v19.05. > > > > > > - Deprecated un-implemented API will be removed in v19.08 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this also apply to unimplemented parts of the existing API? For > > > > > example, malloc API has long had a "name" parameter which goes > > > > > unimplemented through entire lifetime of DPDK project. It would be > > > > > good to drop this thing entirely as it's clear it's not going to be > > > > > implemented any time soon :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > While a good idea in theory, I'm not sure the cost-benefit pays off for this one. Given the fact that the extra parameter is rather harmless, > > > the benefit seems minimal compared to the effort which would be involved for everyone to have to change every rte_malloc call in every > > > app! > > > > I am agree about massive amount of changes, though I thought Anatoly sort of volunteering for it :) > > About benefit - it would save us spilling/restoring one register for each rte_malloc() call. > > Probably not that important, as rte_malloc() usually is used from data-path, but still. > > Plus it doesn't look good to have a function with parameter that would never be used. > > Konstantin > > > > > > I agree, we should do these kind of cleanups, but only on ABI breaking releases. > Too late now for 18.11 and next one is probably 19.11 We can discuss which release can break ABI. I think 19.05 is a good candidate.