27/08/2020 15:00, Kinsella, Ray: > Hi All, > > During recent work on the DPDK ABI, where we are looking to develop a nightly > ABI regression test. > > We found a large number of experimental functions currently in DPDK API. > Currently, there are 537 experimental APIs out of a total of roughly ~1800 > API, 30%-ish. > > While there is no correct number, as a percentage of the total, this appears > to be very high. > I would question if all these API are really "new" and warrant the status? > > There are currently 38 libraries and drivers with experimental functions. > And to be fair there are number of recently added libraries in list, shown > below. > However there are also a number of libraries that have been around a very > long time. > > The following libraries and drivers have 10 or more experimental functions: > > 1. rte_eal: 119 > 2. rte_ethdev: 43 > 3. rte_vhost: 42 > 4. rte_graph: 35 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 5. rte_compressdev: 34 > 6. rte_rib: 28 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 7. rte_pipeline: 24 > 8. rte_regexdev: 22 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 9. rte_cryptodev: 18 > 10. rte_fib: 16 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 11. rte_ipsec: 15 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 12. rte_telemetry: 12 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 13. rte_mbuf: 11 > 14. rte_rcu: 11 (EXPERIMENTAL) > 15. rte_bus_fslmc: 11 > 16. rte_bpf: 10 (EXPERIMENTAL) > > Do the maintainers of these libraries and drivers, > A. Feel that experimental status continues to be warranted against these API? > B. Have plans in place to move all/some of these functions to stable in the > 20.11 timeframe? > > Kudos to Conor Walsh for pulling this data together.
Do you have a tool to sort experimental functions per age?
