[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce malloc virt2phys symbol removal

[Kinsella, Ray]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Monday 5 August 2019 16:13
> To: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Cc: dev <dev at dpdk.org>; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Kinsella, Ray
> <ray.kinsella at intel.com>; Traynor, Kevin <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Stephen
> Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce malloc virt2phys symbol
> removal
> 
> 05/08/2019 17:05, David Marchand:
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:39 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> > > 02/08/2019 15:29, David Marchand:
> > > > This symbol has been deprecated for quite some time.
> > > > Let's drop it in the next release.
> > > > ---
> > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > +* eal: The ``rte_malloc_virt2phy`` function has been deprecated
> > > > +and replaced
> > > > +  by ``rte_malloc_virt2iova`` since v17.11 and will be removed
> in DPDK 19.11.
> > >
> > > For this patch and another one about removing
> > > rte_cpu_check_supported(), I have a general comment on the date of
> removal.
> > >
> > > As was stated recently in the contribution guide:
> > >         http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=7abe4a24cc
> > >         "Deprecated APIs are removed completely just after the next
> LTS."
> > >
> > > The idea behind this policy is to avoid removals during LTS
> > > releases, in order to have at least one release before X.11 LTS for
> > > end users to prepare replacing the usage of the removed API.
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to postpone any API removal after 19.11?
> >
> > Those symbols have been marked as deprecated for a long time.
> > Users had to either disable Werror or they actually migrated to the
> new apis.
> > If they chose the lazy way of not migrating to the new apis, I
> suspect
> > they forgot about it and/or they won't look at the release notes.
> 
> Yes I agree.
> That's why they can be surprised when hitting the removal.
> Avoiding this removal in LTS release is one more care for the lazy
> users. The question: is too much caution?
> 
> > I don't particularly have a problem with waiting for 20.02, those are
> > easy to remove anyway.
> 
> 

My 2c is that if they are have signalled as deprecated since v17.11.
They are fair game for removal at this point. 

Ray K