Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] test/ipsec: measure libipsec performance

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> 
> 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 <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/
> > > >
> > > > 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?