Date
1 - 14 of 14
[vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature
|
Dave Barach
Looping in the technical steering committee...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM To: vpp-dev@... 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. |
|
|
|
Dave Barach
+1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved...
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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... |
|
|
|
Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>
Hi Stephen,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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... |
|
|
|
Jerome Tollet
Hi Steven,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Please note that per this proposition, https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/4/229, 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@... au nom de steven luong via lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@... au nom de sluong=cisco.com@...> 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@... on behalf of Dave Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote:
+1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved... -----Original Message----- From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM > To: vpp-dev@... > 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. > > > > |
|
|
|
This is a pretty good summary of various suggestions for replacement terms: Ed Hi Steven, |
|
|
|
It is subjective and contextualized. But in this case, if making the effort to correct a wrong, why stop half way?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Chris. -----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 To: Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... au nom de steven luong via lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@... au nom de sluong=cisco.com@...> 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@... on behalf of Dave Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote: +1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved... -----Original Message----- From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM > To: vpp-dev@... > 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. > > > > |
|
|
|
Steven, That sounds good to me. I tend to see this as "Get the good ideas for possible replacements out there so the folks doing the work have some inspiration for the choices". Please don't take the link as suggesting that list is the end all and be all of possible choices :) Ed On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:54 AM Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jerome Tollet
Hi Chris,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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, « tsc@... au nom de Chris Luke » <tsc@... au nom de chris_luke@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 To: Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... au nom de steven luong via lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@... au nom de sluong=cisco.com@...> 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@... on behalf of Dave Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote: +1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved... -----Original Message----- From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM > To: vpp-dev@... > 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. > > > > |
|
|
|
St Leger, Jim <jim.st.leger@...>
I believe the DPDK community converged on:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
master/slave lcore -> initial/worker lcore blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist Full community discussion: https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-June/thread.html#169337 Jim -----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:10 AM To: Chris Luke <chris_luke@...>; Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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, « tsc@... au nom de Chris Luke » <tsc@... au nom de chris_luke@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37 To: Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... au nom de steven luong via lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@... au nom de sluong=cisco.com@...> 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@... on behalf of Dave Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote: +1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved... -----Original Message----- From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM > To: vpp-dev@... > 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. > > > > |
|
|
|
I tend to prefer permitlist/denylist personally... but I may have configured one too many ACLs in my life... Ed On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>
The list has a good number of suggestions. In 802.1ax spec, they use the term aggregator and member link. So I am inclined to stick to aggregator/member unless someone finds that it is unacceptable.
Steven
From: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
This is a pretty good summary of various suggestions for replacement terms:
Ed
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Jerome Tollet via
lists.fd.io <jtollet=cisco.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Christian Hopps <chopps@...>
On Jul 14, 2020, at 1:20 PM, St Leger, Jim <jim.st.leger@...> wrote:VPP is ok here I think with "main" and "worker". blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlistThat 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.
|
|
|
|
Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>
I am in the process of pushing a patch to replace master/slave with aggregator/member for the bonding.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Steven On 7/13/20, 4:44 AM, "vpp-dev@... on behalf of Dave Barach via lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote: +1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved... -----Original Message-----
From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> 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@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM > To: vpp-dev@... > 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. > > > > |
|
|
|
In today's TSC meeting we had a discussion of what, if any, role the TSC should play in the renaming process around nomenclatures like master/slave whitelist/blacklist etc. It's important to understand that the TSC in FD.io, quite intentionally, does not and cannot tell the projects what to do. Given that, and the fact that there are technical details involved in making the proper renaming decisions, we determined that there are two potentially helpful things we can and do: 1) Attempt to assemble helpful guidance to projects in making their decisions. This would include pointing out resources for alternate name ideas, considerations like coordination with neighboring communities and standards bodies that may also be renaming to attempt to achieve consistency etc. 2) Provide a publicly facing visible reporting of what various FD.io projects are doing around renaming. Some renaming is going to involve API changes that take time to responsibly implement. Some renaming will involve consensus seeking with other communities and standards bodies. We want to make clear that we are taking this seriously, taking action, and provide public visibility into the process. As with most things in Open Source, visibility and openness are the best medicine. The TSC is also quite interested in input from the broader community about what we could productively do, suggestions or comments around the current thoughts, and participation from those who wish to be more involved in solving these problems. Ed On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...> wrote:
|
|
|