> On Jun 5, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:14:50 +0000
> "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>> organization is a little specific, with an lcore that does most init work
>>> and spawns the others, but then runs the application like all others.
>>>
>>> I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader
>>> is still a member of the team and will participate in the work.
>>>
>>> Leader / worker?
>>>
>>
>> I personally doubt such changes are needed at all.
>> Code churn will be massive for both DPDK itself and related user projects.
>> With no real gain in return, from my perspective.
>> Konstantin
>>
>
> Your concern is valid but the issue does need to be addressed.
> If now when? This is as a good a time as any to do it.
>
> Increasing diversity and inclusion is an overarching goal of many
> organizations
> include my employer(Microsoft), the parent organization of DPDK(LF)
> and my values.
>
> Following values is more important than minor replacement of text in API.
I feel like Konstantin is correct here.
If we were using these terms for humans or groups of humans, then I would agree
they should be changed. We need to take into account the context of the
reference to these words. I agree some words should never be used in any
context, but these terms are very reasonable in the context of DPDK and
networking.
If everyone wants to accept the code churn (and it will effect a large number
of applications, plus back porting will be more difficult IMO), then we can do
it.
