Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v8] /net: memory interface (memif)

[Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 5:22 PM
> To: Jakub Grajciar
> <jgraj...@cisco.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v8] /net: memory interface (memif)
> 
> On Thu, 16 May 2019 13:46:58 +0200
> Jakub Grajciar <jgraj...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > +enum memif_role_t {
> > +   MEMIF_ROLE_MASTER,
> > +   MEMIF_ROLE_SLAVE,
> > +};
> 
> Because master/slave terminology is potentially culturally offensive it is
> flagged by many corporate source scanning tools.
> 
> Could you use primary/secondary in memif instead?

Other implementations also use master/slave terminology, so changing it would 
be confusing. However, we will consider using primary/secondary in next 
protocol version.