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 F1BAEA056A; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1701BFD2; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00E41BFBB for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:58:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1D92242E; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 03:58:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 06 Mar 2020 03:58:49 -0500 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=8BP9MY5qDGUvW2mhfQBYxqjtqAnd5oWYGdlwhCcXWL0=; b=ZdlZ22dZyciN UGa/cAo5OvnWik5j0zB4V3FZakVWwMx+pRbr7cvgGElA+5BzLjtIHJWzjfq12GdL zFCwrOG5oBPUwnSyVwr/l+tjnwXNm1zI7qi1u7NL7kKKUi5rQJ3NNJjvev0zDg6K zj0KTqNbq1IFG8/y4kN4y9ywKpePW2c= 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=8BP9MY5qDGUvW2mhfQBYxqjtqAnd5oWYGdlwhCcXW L0=; b=fkCsZ6zafY9ksY6DxljHhO9jQVjVeRHCpc2lXSUNCf8E2pbSalBb25CPs qeJkz3F7YvEdMWEoB5y5nXj9mEUMaOy4PMIyYDCyXkZIhIQLOspaCv0VS2HkkIr7 vG7ww44TFhZC5gXg7aGIic8J2ucVOoeL5OhXnVaUrCY+Ofa9JTcGTCgC/hgw6EbT MfmCib1gjlwAg1B1nW4821XPwMblfrTn0bpetPCH3i9mkd36gTAIwmXJuiW+Kav4 Mq4voGQ9u52VeS8wpWQmmt4P1lV2hVLe1/Rtg8We/IkwO++hLFrw9LnncLcF2JKk 4VaBDOcpl4XpQO/nK8aN7ssUGpvKQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudduuddguddviecutefuodetggdotefrod 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 A6ABE306075F; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 03:58:47 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "Dharmappa, Savinay" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:58:45 +0100 Message-ID: <2628800.AiC22s8V5E@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20200302114319.3886-1-savinay.dharmappa@intel.com> <2820277.687JKscXgg@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" 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. 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*