Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology

[Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>]

On 6/16/20 11:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
 > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:52:01 -0400
 > Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> wrote:
 >
 >> On 6/16/20 7:48 AM, Jay Rolette wrote:
 >>   > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Hemminger <
 >>   > stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
 >>   >
 >>   >> I am disturbed by the wide spread use of master/slave in Ethernet
 >> bonding.
 >>   >> Asked the current IEEE chairs and it looks like it is already fixed
 >>   >> "upstream".
 >>   >>
 >>   >> The proper terminology is for Ethernet link aggregation in the
 >>   >> the current standard 802.1AX 2020 revision (pay walled) for the 
parts
 >>   >> formerly known as master and slave is now "Protocol Parser" and
 >> "Protocol
 >>   >> multiplexer".
 >>   >>
 >>   >> Also it is not called bonding anywhere; it uses LACP only.
 >>   >>
 >>   >
 >>   > LACP is only 1 of 5 bonding modes.
 >>   >
 >>   >
 >>   >> Given the large scope of the name changes. Maybe it would be 
best to
 >> just
 >>   >> convert the names
 >>   >> all of rte_eth_bond to rte_eth_lacp and fix the master/slave
 >> references at
 >>   >> the same time.
 >>   >>
 >>   >
 >>   > Why rename rte_eth_bond at all?
 >>
 >> If there is a strong desire to rename the PMD, I suggest using link
 >> aggregration group (LAG/lag) since that is a more accurate 
description of
 >> this feature. That's the terminology used in 802.1AX. This would make
 >> some of the internal name changes more natural as well.
 >
 > The words that matter most are getting rid of master/slave and 
blacklist/whitelist.
 > The worst is "bonded slave". Luckily the master and slave are only 
used internally

After looking at the specification, I might suggest renaming slaves to
links. Member would likely be fine as well if one is concerned about
confusion with link status. As for the container name, aggregator or
aggregate would be fine. aggport would be closer to the specification.

 > in the driver so no visible API/ABI with those terms.

I am not entirely convinced of that.

% egrep -i 'master|slave' rte_pmd_bond_version.map
	rte_eth_bond_8023ad_slave_info;
	rte_eth_bond_active_slaves_get;
	rte_eth_bond_slave_add;
	rte_eth_bond_slave_remove;
	rte_eth_bond_slaves_get;
%

 > One option would be to substitute slave with multiplexer in the comments
 > and shorter term like mux in the variables. And replace master with 
aggregator.

There are very few master references in the bonding PMD. It's usage
appears to be as an adjective and easily removed. The "master" port is
typically called bonded which isn't fantastic since bond is often used
in a slightly different context.

 > You are right, the standard name is LACP other names seem to be 
viewed as early
 > history alternatives:
 > 	Cisco - Etherchannel
 > 	Juniper - Aggregated Ethernet
 > 	Others - Multi-link
 > 	BSD - lagg
 > 	Linux bonding
 > 	Solaris aggr
 >
 > The point of this thread is to get consensus about best future naming.
 >