From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5C6A05D3 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 11:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352E45A6A; Mon, 20 May 2019 11:22:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C260F5592 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 11:22:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=820; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558344131; x=1559553731; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=t3UbxuJRJHQNfWgRsZv2FpD4P008/+nVSju+nPau2n4=; b=d6QuHmgs4RhO6HjcgEfg2xOp4fkHfTpnkj9uIxEF59mdKQyuet0GzC+U WiJ+3grbG0Y7/GCLB/Pgiej+spNzDUVRM/6e37bIPK1WLHqGl507KXs+A YoAdn5/ly+BHWKApB2ZEnsfjhozpi2ZUP/O3p0ju8AzUf1V5gk50/x8Q/ U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAD6cOJc/5pdJa1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBghCBPTAoCowljHyYVYF7CQEBAQwBAS8?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYRAAoI3IzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtKIVKAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgRBAEBAR4QMh0?= =?us-ascii?q?IAgQOBQgNhRimO4otgTQBi1AXgX+EIz6KJgSoGAkCHYFwknQjlh+iDQIRFYE?= =?us-ascii?q?wHziBV3AVgyeQUUExjgmBIQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,491,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="275803151" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 May 2019 09:22:10 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (xch-rcd-018.cisco.com [173.37.102.28]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4K9MAJJ020018 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 May 2019 09:22:10 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 20 May 2019 04:22:09 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Mon, 20 May 2019 04:22:09 -0500 From: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" To: Stephen Hemminger CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Damjan Marion (damarion)" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v8] /net: memory interface (memif) Thread-Index: AQHVC90c7kU83eNsukukNUnJqu7deKZuMi2AgAWOxDA= Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 09:22:09 +0000 Message-ID: <10c76f5300a14a1ab834bee495283a98@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> References: <20190513104552.27843-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190516114658.29102-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190516082133.5d45b8af@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190516082133.5d45b8af@hermes.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.243.54] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.28, xch-rcd-018.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v8] /net: memory interface (memif) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 5:22 PM > To: Jakub Grajciar > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v8] /net: memory interface (memif) >=20 > On Thu, 16 May 2019 13:46:58 +0200 > Jakub Grajciar wrote: >=20 > > +enum memif_role_t { > > + MEMIF_ROLE_MASTER, > > + MEMIF_ROLE_SLAVE, > > +}; >=20 > Because master/slave terminology is potentially culturally offensive it i= s > flagged by many corporate source scanning tools. >=20 > Could you use primary/secondary in memif instead? Other implementations also use master/slave terminology, so changing it wou= ld be confusing. However, we will consider using primary/secondary in next = protocol version.