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 0FDC7A0598; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:28:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9691D8CF; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:28:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27291D8CE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:28:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174DE5C020E; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 06:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 06:28:30 -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= SK/haFjOgShpXwX3s1oX/i6LBfEmJHDN/yBD3pmJFfM=; b=TVCBZMJhfyP2QVDl xKhXcVPe/W0Yft4NtJkAWdZt7QZMEdhXB9s+mEDORbwzPSCTi+rGuLMYw8yMBOvL bnY6e33XwGi/Ei4VnT27JqAoS5f+ghWTg8jZh89ZofBXlVf9TRjR3q9IRX6MXif0 q4cnDzRmqaSnfMds/nkOUMxRsnuRqA/BfUgOo0XvnO1bGosBUi/SF5+Ojs7cFik3 QiZrUTO3/PGX1f9y1YHUqazAdi762+NkodAfsFqxiPRJ9YH9DOF430xi3ULSO+JE DicUqNR6gHrq8J5oPFmpoYCtjGKxrL4qHKt+3Ce480sbUsv2hZYsHfB/upRJlV0B EtFlpw== 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=SK/haFjOgShpXwX3s1oX/i6LBfEmJHDN/yBD3pmJF fM=; b=NVL3dBZvM4wuCe1IFXsnViNUXgiHKPTMXRNti9TdTyNXrmNQtUAt7arRK 6S3kEKcSkuxycM+1DAurtK253mK9wurjXbyY76h8jv87eUs3kgeyeoI/mAIOswm+ +0QrJlGXQJ0GV14Xh/pUrMJ2glu8ltT370meWmQp355m5b/OVbWjC9R9jktNouvX yf5U4Ps5LrerJWmOsptKYglWmWD7XCH9KTY7YR6sjyrK1Ki1KaTIzevP8UWN8ud6 ytVx9tKzlwLGFz3JZPJ/t/zwQFBaQiBb4sw5/COGC9GJJ6y8isDZxdUcMqqgMl0M 0nOPTmxU+nACadwN4mh6y09Fg9qNA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrgeehgdeftdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf 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 E6D0E3065C64; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 06:28:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "Dharmappa, Savinay" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: <42905568.fMDQidcC6G@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200305071523.30952-1-savinay.dharmappa@intel.com> <2018185.irdbgypaU6@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 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.