Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration support

[David Miller]

From: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:30:50 +0000

> On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 11:36 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:19:35 -0700
>> 
>> > Yes, words do matter and convey a lot of implied connotation and
>> > meaning.
>> 
>> What is your long term plan?  Will you change all of the UAPI for
>> bonding for example?
> 
> The long term plan in my view includes talking with standards bodies to
> move new content to, for example, master/subordinate. In other words,
> practical forward steps, not retroactively changing interfaces.

When that knowledge is established legitimately in standards and
transferred into common knowledge of these technologies, yes then
please come present your proposals.

But right now using different words will create confusion.

I also find master/subordinate an interesting proposal, what if master
is a triggering term?  Why only slave?

I know people feel something needs to change, but do that moving
forward for the technologies themselves.  Not how we implement support
for a technology which is established already.

Plant the seed, don't chop the tree down.