[v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash

Message ID 1549375057-4211-2-git-send-email-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com
State Rejected
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series
  • [v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash
Related show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/checkpatch warning coding style issues

Commit Message

Medvedkin, Vladimir Feb. 5, 2019, 1:57 p.m.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
---
v2:
- remove mail footer

 MAINTAINERS | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Comments

Thomas Monjalon Feb. 6, 2019, 10:38 a.m. | #1
05/02/2019 14:57, Vladimir Medvedkin:
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> +M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> +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.
Medvedkin, Vladimir Feb. 7, 2019, 7:28 p.m. | #2
On 06/02/2019 10:38, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 05/02/2019 14:57, Vladimir Medvedkin:
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> +M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>> +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.

>
>
>
Thomas Monjalon Feb. 7, 2019, 9:24 p.m. | #3
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 <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> >> +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.
Gobriel, Sameh Feb. 7, 2019, 9:32 p.m. | #4
I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from hash table implementation. 

Sameh

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM
To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz 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 <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
> >> +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.
Wang, Yipeng1 Feb. 7, 2019, 11:13 p.m. | #5
Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for stepping up for the maintaining job.

I agree with you that they are two parts and we mixed hash table and hashing function from beginning. They are actually should be two libraries, but at this
Stage it is not very necessary to change the situation yet I think.

If you trust us, I will definitely consult with you for questions coming up about thash (also other hash functions like crc and jhash to the corresponding
Authors). I will also get more familiar with the code as the maintainer.

Thanks
Yipeng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gobriel, Sameh
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:33 PM
>To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch,
>Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash
>
>I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from hash table implementation.
>
>Sameh
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM
>To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
><bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz 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 <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>> >> +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.
>
Medvedkin, Vladimir Feb. 8, 2019, 11:34 a.m. | #6
Hi Yipeng,

Yes, I agree with you point. So keep me in mind if you decide to split hash table and functions someday :)
Thomas, I think this patch could be rejected.

Thanks! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang, Yipeng1 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:14 PM
To: Gobriel, Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of Toeplitz hash

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for stepping up for the maintaining job.

I agree with you that they are two parts and we mixed hash table and hashing function from beginning. They are actually should be two libraries, but at this Stage it is not very necessary to change the situation yet I think.

If you trust us, I will definitely consult with you for questions coming up about thash (also other hash functions like crc and jhash to the corresponding Authors). I will also get more familiar with the code as the maintainer.

Thanks
Yipeng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gobriel, Sameh
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:33 PM
>To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Medvedkin, Vladimir 
><vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Richardson, 
>Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo 
><pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh 
><ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of 
>Toeplitz hash
>
>I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from hash table implementation.
>
>Sameh
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM
>To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wang, Yipeng1 <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>; Gobriel, 
>Sameh <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce 
><bruce.richardson@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo 
><pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh 
><ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] maintainers: claim maintainership of 
>Toeplitz 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 <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
>> >> +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.
>

Patch

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index eef480a..81affda 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -1131,6 +1131,9 @@  F: doc/guides/prog_guide/hash_lib.rst
 F: test/test/test_*hash*
 F: test/test/test_func_reentrancy.c
 
+M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>
+F: lib/librte_hash/rte_thash.h
+
 LPM
 M: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 M: Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>