From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <8657694.f1liP514bC@xps> References: <1549375057-4211-1-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> <5937441.0T0pBNs0GK@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Yipeng Wang , Sameh Gobriel , Bruce Richardson , Pablo de Lara , ferruh.yigit@intel.com To: "Medvedkin, Vladimir" 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) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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.