[PATCH] doc: announce transition to vDPA port close function

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 7/12/22 14:28, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/07/2022 14:26, Thomas Monjalon:
>> 12/07/2022 11:16, Maxime Coquelin:
>>>
>>> On 5/18/21 09:34, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> There is a layer violation in the vDPA API which encourages to destroy
>>>> a full device with rte_dev_remove() instead of just closing the port.
>>>> The plan is to introduce a new function in 21.08, promote in 21.11,
>>>> and deprecate rte_vdpa_get_rte_device() in 21.11.
>> [...]
>>>> +* vdpa: The vDPA API should not try to manipulate or export
>>>> +  any ``rte_device`` object, which belongs to the bus layer.
>>>> +  The function ``rte_vdpa_get_rte_device()`` will be deprecated in 21.11,
>>>> +  when its usage will be replaced with a function ``rte_vdpa_close()``.
>>>> +  The new function should enter in 21.08 and get promoted to stable in 21.11.
>>>> +  A port close function will allow to close a single port without destroying
>>>> +  the rest of the device.
>>>
>>> Maybe there was some changes since you posted the announce, but I don't
>>> see why rte_vdpa_close() would be needed. It seems the only user of
>>> rte_vdpa_get_rte_device() is the internal vDPA example, and it only use
>>> it to get and print the device name.
>>
>> You're right, it was an oversight.
>> So we need only to get the rte_device name.
>>
>> I propose to replace
>> 	struct rte_device *rte_vdpa_get_rte_device(struct rte_vdpa_device *vdpa_dev);
>> with
>> 	const char *rte_vdpa_get_name(void);
> 
> sorry, I missed a parameter :)
> It would be:
> 	const char *rte_vdpa_get_name(struct rte_vdpa_device *vdpa_dev);
> 
> Or do you prefer "rte_vdpa_get_device_name"?
> 
> 
> 
rte_vdpa_get_device_name may be prefered to avoid confusion with the
socket name.

Thanks,
Maxime