05/03/2020 23:51, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > 05/03/2020 12:45, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > I think the header need to be "app/test", or "test/ipsec". > > > > It should be "test/ipsec" as it is an IPsec test command > > in the test application. > > > > > Apart from that: > > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > I wonder why we have a different maintainer for each IPsec test. > > It looks a bit confusing. > > > > IPsec - EXPERIMENTAL > > M: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > T: git://dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-crypto > > F: lib/librte_ipsec/ > > M: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremon...@intel.com> > > F: app/test/test_ipsec.c > > F: doc/guides/prog_guide/ipsec_lib.rst > > M: Savinay Dharmappa <savinay.dharma...@intel.com> > > F: app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c > > M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medved...@intel.com> > > F: app/test/test_ipsec_sad.c > > F: app/test-sad/ > > I suppose mainly by historical reasons - > each of these tests have different authors. > Obviously each author claimed maintanership of his own code. > Do you consider that as a problem?
Yes I consider a maintainer should know a whole area and be the point of contact for this area. For instance, when there is a bug with a test, we don't know whether the problem is in the test or in the library. Note that the original author can be found with the git history. > > In general, only one person takes the responsibility to be > > the main contact of any related question in the area. > > > > So the file pattern could be: > > F: app/test/test_ipsec*
