[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: announce removal of old port count function

[David Marchand]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:48 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at 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 at 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 at redhat.com>


-- 
David Marchand