> On Jul 14, 2020, at 1:20 PM, St Leger, Jim <jim.st.le...@intel.com> wrote: > > I believe the DPDK community converged on: > master/slave lcore -> initial/worker lcore
VPP is ok here I think with "main" and "worker". > blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist That one feels a bit clunky to me. I wonder why they didn't go for something more natural like nouns: blocked/allowed verbs: block/allow The terms blacklist/whitelist can be a nouns or verbs, and I suspect they are often not implemented as an actual list data structure, so trying to keep the "list" suffix seems an unnecessary carryover (and sounds clunky IMHO). :) Thanks, Chris. > > Full community discussion: > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-June/thread.html#169337 > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet > via lists.fd.io > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:10 AM > To: Chris Luke <chris_l...@comcast.com>; Steven Luong (sluong) > <slu...@cisco.com>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Kinsella, Ray > <m...@ashroe.eu>; Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; t...@lists.fd.io; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [tsc] [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature > > Hi Chris, > I suspect it would be good to align on the new bond nomenclature coming from > other projects. DPDK and Linux are probably starting points we should > consider IMO. > Jerome > > Le 14/07/2020 18:45, « t...@lists.fd.io au nom de Chris Luke » > <t...@lists.fd.io au nom de chris_l...@comcast.com> a écrit : > > It is subjective and contextualized. But in this case, if making the > effort to correct a wrong, why stop half way? > > Chris. > > -----Original Message----- > From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet > via lists.fd.io > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 > To: Steven Luong (sluong) <slu...@cisco.com>; Dave Barach (dbarach) > <dbar...@cisco.com>; Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu>; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; t...@lists.fd.io; Ed > Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature > > Hi Steven, > Please note that per this proposition, > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/4/229__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!QdLdxm4rtZW-mFe5jt_qzEpx-_X2KWnqvjyEl-7Py41jsEV7FrnEw0lTNcF8LdfUzQ$ > , slave must be avoided but master can be kept. > Maybe master/member or master/secondary could be options too. > Jerome > > Le 14/07/2020 18:32, « vpp-dev@lists.fd.io au nom de steven luong via > lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io au nom de sluong=cisco....@lists.fd.io> a > écrit : > > I am in the process of pushing a patch to replace master/slave with > aggregator/member for the bonding. > > Steven > > On 7/13/20, 4:44 AM, "vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of Dave Barach via > lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io on behalf of dbarach=cisco....@lists.fd.io> > wrote: > > +1, especially since our next release will be supported for a > year, and API name changes are involved... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kinsella, Ray <m...@ashroe.eu> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM > To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Stephen Hemminger > <step...@networkplumber.org>; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io; t...@lists.fd.io; Ed > Warnicke (eaw) <e...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature > > Hi Stephen, > > I agree, I don't think we should ignore this. > Ed - I suggest we table a discussion at the next FD.io TSC? > > Ray K > > On 09/07/2020 17:05, Dave Barach via lists.fd.io wrote: >> Looping in the technical steering committee... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> On Behalf Of Stephen >> Hemminger >> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM >> To: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io >> Subject: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature >> >> Is the VPP project addressing the use of master/slave nomenclature in the >> code base, documentation and CLI? We are doing this for DPDK and it would >> be good if the replacement wording used in DPDK matched the wording used in >> FD.io projects. >> >> Particularly problematic is the use of master/slave in bonding. >> This seems to be a leftover from Linux, since none of the commercial >> products use that terminology and it is not present in 802.1AX standard. >> >> The IEEE and IETF are doing an across the board look at these terms in >> standards. >> >> >> >> > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16958): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/16958 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/75503531/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
