On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:46:16 +0100
Simon Horman <simon.hor...@corigine.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:47:27AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:15:13 +0800
> > Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +void
> > > +rte_eth_bond_8023ad_lacp_send_one(void *queue)
> > > +{
> > > + uint32_t i;
> > > + uint16_t slave_tx_count;
> > > + uint16_t active_slave_count;
> > > + uint16_t active_slave_ids[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS];
> >
> > Thinking ahead, all of bonding driver should remove the usage of the
> > terms master and slave. Perhaps you don't want to introduce new
> > usages that will have to be fixed.
> >
> > FYI - there is no usage of master/slave in any of the IEEE standards,
> > or operating systems other than Linux.
>
> Thanks Stephen,
>
> could we agree on alternative language?
I did a little looking around and did not come to a great answer.
Looking at FreeBSD (and Solaris) they use lagg for the aggregating device
and laggport for the devices associated with it. Applying same logic
to DPDK would be awkward because it already uses the term "port"
in multiple ways.
Cisco uses the term "port channel group" when configuring link aggregation.
Going that way maybe use channels as the replacement for slave in code like
this.
