From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753681B64B for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:32:57 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2019 13:32:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,345,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="122819039" Received: from orsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.240.5]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2019 13:32:56 -0800 Received: from orsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.240]) by ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.231]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 13:32:55 -0800 From: "Gobriel, Sameh" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Medvedkin, Vladimir" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Wang, Yipeng1" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "Yigit, Ferruh" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash Thread-Index: AQHUvxtlgVJNV1e2L0aWnoZn866A56XVXwoA//96hgA= Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 21:32:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1549375057-4211-1-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> <5937441.0T0pBNs0GK@xps> <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps> In-Reply-To: <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZTU0NWQ1NDUtNWU2My00ZGY5LTkwYzYtYzk4YTg5YzI4YzEwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoib0o5a0RRUVZkVTJTUzdsMXlSMHFrcU1CNnhTYW5hSmZFeVwvXC9XMkthNlVCWUJCcmFXZXZ6czBvUUhzSEJpRWR5In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 21:32:58 -0000 I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from hash= table implementation.=20 Sameh -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]=20 Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM To: Medvedkin, Vladimir Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 ; Gobriel, Sameh ; Richardson, Bruce ; De= Lara Guarch, Pablo ; Yigit, Ferruh Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toe= plitz hash 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=20 > > reviews if you don't catch them by yourself. > > But I prefer seeing maintainers as taking charge and understanding=20 > > 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=20 > > would appear as maintainer for all hash files. >=20 > It could be solved by adding header. >=20 > In fact thash is not used by other parts of the hash library (instead=20 > it could be used by softnic for example). >=20 > From my point of view, hash library consists of two parts, hash table=20 > itself and a number of hash functions. Hash functions, in turn, can be=20 > used for many other purposes, not just for a hash table. Maybe we=20 > should separate hash functions and hash table? And if you think it is=20 > 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.