I agree with Thomas. It makes sense to separate out hash function from hash table implementation.
Sameh -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:25 PM To: Medvedkin, Vladimir <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Wang, Yipeng1 <[email protected]>; Gobriel, Sameh <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> +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.
