From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EFD1B642 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:25:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2956220AA; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:24:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:24:59 -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=QgqZE9tr3gny+aCBdtDkhhI4Sx9zLka8CMrgxQsFbJ0=; b=C0JO6tyCKY4y MOWrlw1RZWj0lo0UEe9c9eGtRF49KYXJvvoeStKQOyyELBkxJY2dHkV6JWJOTxj4 G5cwMIFhyLENMH+ZNjeInjwqNy7s/XbFOxD8Im/ahmvvU7o9AwZMklcs4RVdv3JC nP+Z3x7LjagTigeCm/A4qjOI6rljsnk= 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=QgqZE9tr3gny+aCBdtDkhhI4Sx9zLka8CMrgxQsFb J0=; b=KrDXyeaIJeUa8eBLBAfHbAuxEsKxv9qQW5ArRDVnPObwEfRCryEskKcok zIuSc1TN2yiu98pvgzU3FAPwm+9HO0xvdtXZG++VRCJsmRaliG0isoTwdp/WIuUy Zd0yhxyBq9xgDssxkPFIKgrb06CrcSRc2Nk6sMnjWw2RgxFkDrY+3lgqfdzy6LMz dmI8Upp8wdrzj1tFhpburBwBYC2wX7ust9CpPT/iI9xe8rQBSvjk2zJjfVt/CeqY aE+d1RQHFma7xzENHZzBDhAd5i2T0wDtSGEm99Bsi6b57P1+wPjs5Wkp7CC1GT7z w36warkb7oe+9sI4G5lUhfKX7ZMPA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrledtgdduheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjg hfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcu oehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtd efrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd 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 A266F1030F; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:24:57 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Yipeng Wang , Sameh Gobriel , Bruce Richardson , Pablo de Lara , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1549375057-4211-1-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> <5937441.0T0pBNs0GK@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 21:25:00 -0000 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 > >> +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.