On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:17:48PM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > > > 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. > > I've always thought of it as a "bond device" which has other netdevs as > "components" (as in 'things that are part of'). So maybe > "main"/"component" or something to that effect?
Same here, and it's pretty much like how I see the bridge as well. "bridge device" and "legs". Marcelo
