> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:46:16 +0100
> Simon Horman <simon.hor...@corigine.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:47:27AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:15:13 +0800
> > > Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +void
> > > > +rte_eth_bond_8023ad_lacp_send_one(void *queue) {
> > > > + uint32_t i;
> > > > + uint16_t slave_tx_count;
> > > > + uint16_t active_slave_count;
> > > > + uint16_t active_slave_ids[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS];
> > >
> > > Thinking ahead, all of bonding driver should remove the usage of the
> > > terms master and slave. Perhaps you don't want to introduce new
> > > usages that will have to be fixed.
> > >
> > > FYI - there is no usage of master/slave in any of the IEEE
> > > standards, or operating systems other than Linux.
> >
> > Thanks Stephen,
> >
> > could we agree on alternative language?
>
> I did a little looking around and did not come to a great answer.
> Looking at FreeBSD (and Solaris) they use lagg for the aggregating device and
> laggport for the devices associated with it. Applying same logic to DPDK
> would be awkward because it already uses the term "port"
> in multiple ways.
>
> Cisco uses the term "port channel group" when configuring link aggregation.
> Going that way maybe use channels as the replacement for slave in code like
> this.
>
How about we use 'main' and 'member' ?
