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 B1634A0566; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:14:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD761BFF5; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:14:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0DD1BF96 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:14:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B3021A4B; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:14:15 -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=mesmtp; bh=PkzYl5zA2HFqzJ5B4V88cPNfJf4wOTABZW6rHuSAZos=; b=fd6rEiV2KRG9 39tLMy3McHjwhcNxXrOn4L/KuPiIC3M76PXw+ArkP1dpbSmUvyAdK5DvEj53Wd6r K0T3b7QZVnn8qEuMDdAfA4kNr0mOSkFR7UuKvl0Afnu4vl24wllejdszsO9pWQ1z cdFwlaTXIfH5JeRHSFK+KxSyJoNmfSM= 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=PkzYl5zA2HFqzJ5B4V88cPNfJf4wOTABZW6rHuSAZ os=; b=hcnPrR9Yi/Y+bXUDHoS1GcdbiLXK4ArdXghbkn6xiQbtbl5SvtnNXQUYp xc+oIdHOlhoq6vq4xG04QDSvJy+ZQsRlm7GYSFSpcKrX4hshFBSpqsX5sZjVNgoP VHrE+FhRj+EqMgKctsHOxb7CbSTcx7CDdcUMB4ibdd4Bgj8LTr+a4tQb9SaRTXUF pbr3eluoXUxVKV4JZJrMGCDEN+XiEcUdZ+RmDwS97vAfPBQ215v2pXQSBvZ7Hyjc Kj9PFDxDVEV5sPgAk5PY9j57Y+oxLNGysmo9S1Vvs0QxzQLpe/W6HGIYlWnLy87+ 272gAHJmy8y4Ur5Amj7YEoU8mMrTg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvtddguddvjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomh grshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 7B70C30612AF; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:14:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "Dharmappa, Savinay" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:14:06 +0100 Message-ID: <2589124.BEx9A2HvPv@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20200302114319.3886-1-savinay.dharmappa@intel.com> <2628800.AiC22s8V5E@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app: test: 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" 10/03/2020 14:24, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > 05/03/2020 23:51, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > > > 05/03/2020 12:45, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > > > I think the header need to be "app/test", or "test/ipsec". > > > > > > > > It should be "test/ipsec" as it is an IPsec test command > > > > in the test application. > > > > > > > > > Apart from that: > > > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > > > > > I wonder why we have a different maintainer for each IPsec test. > > > > It looks a bit confusing. > > > > > > > > IPsec - EXPERIMENTAL > > > > M: Konstantin Ananyev > > > > T: git://dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-crypto > > > > 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/ > > > > > > I suppose mainly by historical reasons - > > > each of these tests have different authors. > > > Obviously each author claimed maintanership of his own code. > > > Do you consider that as a problem? > > > > Yes I consider a maintainer should know a whole area > > and be the point of contact for this area. > > For instance, when there is a bug with a test, > > we don't know whether the problem is in the test or in the library. > > But same problem could appear with any test/sample app. > Let say you have a problem with testpmd. > Is that testpmd itself, rte_ethdev or particular PMD? > Obviously some preliminary investigation is needed before finger pointing. > I don't see why having multiple persons as maintainers for the same area > is a problem. In fact, it probably gives more chances for faster turnover > (as long as they do their maintainer job properly). Yes, having several maintainers is good. But having one different maintainer per test file is quite ridiculous. In general the maintainers of a lib are also maintaining the related app files. > > Note that the original author can be found with the git history. > > > > > > In general, only one person takes the responsibility to be > > > > the main contact of any related question in the area. > > > > > > > > So the file pattern could be: > > > > F: app/test/test_ipsec* > > > > > >