Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

07/02/2019 20:28, Medvedkin, Vladimir:
> On 06/02/2019 10:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 05/02/2019 14:57, Vladimir Medvedkin:
> >> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >> +M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> >> +F: lib/librte_hash/rte_thash.h
> > I'm not sure about adding maintainership for one file.
> > You are the author of this file, so you should be consulted
> > during reviews if you don't catch them by yourself.
> > But I prefer seeing maintainers as taking charge and understanding of
> > a full library as a block.
> >
> > And unfortunately, it does not work with the script:
> > 	devtools/get-maintainer.sh lib/librte_hash/rte_cuckoo_hash.h
> > You would appear as maintainer for all hash files.
> 
> It could be solved by adding header.
> 
> In fact thash is not used by other parts of the hash library (instead it 
> could be used by softnic for example).
> 
>  From my point of view, hash library consists of two parts, hash table 
> itself and a number of hash functions. Hash functions, in turn, can be 
> used for many other purposes, not just for a hash table. Maybe we should 
> separate hash functions and hash table? And if you think it is a bad 
> idea, so be it, 4 maintainers for hash is enough.

I don't know.
It's opening the door for more split of maintainers areas.
I would like to get more opinions from other maintainers, please.