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

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

> 21/04/2020 13:07, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > 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?
> 
> My concern was to have the library maintainer maintaining also the related tests.
> I don't understand why you don't want to take this responsibility,
> but I cannot force you.
> Having only one maintainer for IPsec tests is better than the current situation.

Ok, are you going to drop v4, so we can submit v5 with the fixes?
Or should we submit a patch with fixes on top of v4?
Konstantin