On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:36 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/13/20 11:51 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > As part of an effort to help enact social change, Red Hat is > > committing to efforts to eliminate any problematic terminology from > > any of the software that it ships and supports. Front and center for > > me personally in that effort is the bonding driver's use of the terms > > master and slave, and to a lesser extent, bond and bonding, due to > > bondage being another term for slavery. Most people in computer > > science understand these terms aren't intended to be offensive or > > oppressive, and have well understood meanings in computing, but > > nonetheless, they still present an open wound, and a barrier for > > participation and inclusion to some. > > > > To start out with, I'd like to attempt to eliminate as much of the use > > of master and slave in the bonding driver as possible. For the most > > part, I think this can be done without breaking UAPI, but may require > > changes to anything accessing bond info via proc or sysfs. > > > > My initial thought was to rename master to aggregator and slaves to > > ports, but... that gets really messy with the existing 802.3ad bonding > > code using both extensively already. I've given thought to a number of > > other possible combinations, but the one that I'm liking the most is > > master -> bundle and slave -> cable, for a number of reasons. I'd > > considered cable and wire, as a cable is a grouping of individual > > wires, but we're grouping together cables, really -- each bonded > > ethernet interface has a cable connected, so a bundle of cables makes > > sense visually and figuratively. Additionally, it's a swap made easier > > in the codebase by master and bundle and slave and cable having the > > same number of characters, respectively. Granted though, "bundle" > > doesn't suggest "runs the show" the way "master" or something like > > maybe "director" or "parent" does, but those lack the visual aspect > > present with a bundle of cables. Using parent/child could work too > > though, it's perhaps closer to the master/slave terminology currently > > in use as far as literal meaning. > > > > So... Thoughts? > > > > So you considered : aggregator/ports, bundle/cable. > > I thought about cord/strand, since this is less likely to be used already in > networking land > (like worker, thread, fiber, or wire ...) > > Although a cord with two strands is probably not very common :/
I'd also thought about cable and wire, since there are multiple physical wires inside an ethernet cable, but you typically connect one cable per port, so a bundle of cables seemed to make more sense. :) I also had a few other ideas I played with, including a bundle of pipes and a pipework of pipes (which is apparently a thing, but not very common either, outside of maybe plumbers?). -- Jarod Wilson ja...@redhat.com
