From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81973A0597; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:49:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2D21D91E; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:49:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412F31D17A for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:49:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E505C01B7; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:49:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= mKn5YLsKL4XwvulMKkzBsEPvMqYLbJps4XpCrYacTfs=; b=vuIZXXTSgNHM2rwh Cslfh4BxvhB0Y6SVrRlmW7ndlWfdjtqD7L1y9ZvD2LmZ6UfMYYYW1vRb+g8loF4J urpOMqfZhxYeMeS5p/BkGi6kBpwrn8x/BTIVJrz6g2O1iEJ6whH86MVSzqtsQNsn pzhDpRcp7XYL2umUrS/f25l8Bu3Fj74YqciDKmsukVC255OwQaRMadR81z/7fa7m Ih4pEmhTEzQ7Sp4fJsikg95PEzj9q/zyByuLzK3i7pTatyuaiuoCCdZruM3skZSb 6attZgGuF4HpVvCLHP/D0saUoooYEPkHWBMYm5P3tC1SKZ8SA/tZ31VSWKKPddYs WaK6Gg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=mKn5YLsKL4XwvulMKkzBsEPvMqYLbJps4XpCrYacT fs=; b=0EgoKJJzGF3EiAKVl08lbgytxW0j+Id7U8HK5Ute1NtffrdaOc8ir/0KR WgJZAv1IUszvrJR0wWLlMcWGbPfeyI+vz9eT1M4qKbKB93j1uh1d1TWs/HlB+SkZ WPxuHDkzLvSk37iZn50Eerwljzj7C+941m2Pv014yCNLpbtwTrF6z5c5Xo6G2rku +S4NRZBizzl99sbG+vw+Z7O6tq9Bry2IX9nMQc2eFOX38bRSuruEfVbCc6qW4oiM rr7dQJz4CqrqJ0nxSWBjEKMAMkfmuQ9vo0uD/5Tgxk6HqO1LwfZ4egMgkjWSUy3l zXzzsFmAHOjJ/8ZAAbKt3hGurssYw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrgeehgdeghecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A82CC3280063; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "Dharmappa, Savinay" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "Iremonger, Bernard" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:49:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1827889.yKVeVyVuyW@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200305071523.30952-1-savinay.dharmappa@intel.com> <42905568.fMDQidcC6G@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] test/ipsec: measure libipsec performance X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 21/04/2020 13:07, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > 21/04/2020 12:21, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > 21/04/2020 04:29, Thomas Monjalon: > > > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > > > > @@ -1259,6 +1259,8 @@ F: lib/librte_ipsec/ > > > > > > M: Bernard Iremonger > > > > > > F: app/test/test_ipsec.c > > > > > > F: doc/guides/prog_guide/ipsec_lib.rst > > > > > > +M: Savinay Dharmappa > > > > > > +F: app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c > > > > > > M: Vladimir Medvedkin > > > > > > F: app/test/test_ipsec_sad.c > > > > > > F: app/test-sad/ > > > > > > > > > > Repeating what I said on v3: > > > > > Having one different maintainer per test file is quite ridiculous. > > > > > The maintainers of a lib are expected to maintain the related tests. > > [...] > > > About having separate MAINTAINER for the test - > > > honestly I don't understand why it is a problem for you. > > > Obviously we would like to spread the load - what's wrong with it? > > > > This is a problem of ownership. > > Maintaining a library means you take care of every aspect, including tests. > > That's why I would like to see you as a global maintainer of IPsec. > > > > It doesn't prevent you to delegate workload, of course. > > But at the end it is more convenient to know there is a limited number > > of persons responsible for the global quality of a component, > > a person which is accountable and answering questions on the topic, > > no matter which exact file we are talking about. > > Just talked with Bernard, he kindly agreed to be a maintainer for all ipsec UT: > app/test/test_ipsec* > Hope that will fulfil your concern? My concern was to have the library maintainer maintaining also the related tests. I don't understand why you don't want to take this responsibility, but I cannot force you. Having only one maintainer for IPsec tests is better than the current situation.