Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app: test: measure libipsec performance

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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 <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > 
> > I wonder why we have a different maintainer for each IPsec test.
> > It looks a bit confusing.
> > 
> > IPsec - EXPERIMENTAL
> > M: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > T: git://dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-crypto
> > F: lib/librte_ipsec/
> > M: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > F: app/test/test_ipsec.c
> > F: doc/guides/prog_guide/ipsec_lib.rst
> > M: Savinay Dharmappa <savinay.dharmappa@intel.com>
> > F: app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c
> > M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> > 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.

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*