> > 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.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/ > > > > > > > > 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?
