From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03615A04A3; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2484A1BF4F; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:03:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f180.google.com (mail-qt1-f180.google.com [209.85.160.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CAA1BF4E for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:03:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f180.google.com with SMTP id q14so14948777qtr.9 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 03:03:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pTM+Nl9RyXR1wNUfl2w7iny9nuOMhBPgWs9Ipd68HII=; b=tgr15lO2c/n0lYXtsRdFL0fvjbUdZk8V/4mpCwck5OBQMQcs5AROKVHIygSYGBncHf qhuS4DIK4PVoaFSMMLgIX7p8zeNGtwI0Asi7g2E3H7me+yssOj2Uv4g6DmEsuxxNRz5j dZO4Esb3MSO5ZBad+vWD/tFUqM/wsbN1wCDvXC3M2oX2TUOifvYaajiKPyoBtyUoyqgA pMBTGA8LUeX/QBgP+Vh06KA5y87cNcXZC0i+9bq2pKiRJiIaSekG/mnjuu1TujWrjR6N 6VgtTjKEp8kZmrYFA8GtSkn/0DZuW/iccSJ4YG9uAUKMYAwRswQ5ISL5B/TjMQz7mNdr RJRw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pTM+Nl9RyXR1wNUfl2w7iny9nuOMhBPgWs9Ipd68HII=; b=bBje8/KDaZ1h/0cwB2fxD87pGSIF+k6S9mLhyTLRHPoaHiaIpbqEF+k3s2ncJrzcie 2KSevglyDGunKHySxlyL+5vkAnTRXkbYfBDdmzo6cAabxeBCdnaCh0SlSmJfGKdSx6F+ C5ixDExNlbbHun/O/VCIR8105H9SfcIhDcBWuK3B4MsR3jADgwY7L+VkpfSQsZDB/y9j yPp7Wkl1QrE23lQ+XC8OOiBFu4013+STRnmVLjy+K7DwLoG4M5NDt5Ye9tJIKqZ57gmH z/bxYGCRZG0uVdRUxAHZJvoE2X/SWJT2nLiOwF81EeCf/hgEJWY8AEUWXZ115LeQfBh3 yUAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338TdWdsYJlLKUVNRh7QkbSKoHckqF9VDmhhE54ZGYzCnpdP2Ia B2pRa6SarSQ2mTnvLpUQZuzDcKry X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+zwQ2VcxMgDhxah21zMbMylY1N5D3ntwXXdzdSvmTSJFYQTbMtHEJ3MvG+Q1sC1neyRyQiQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:31f3:: with SMTP id i48mr20345658qte.128.1592301815683; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 03:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (pool-96-255-60-31.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [96.255.60.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k26sm15775355qtk.55.2020.06.16.03.03.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 03:03:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Stephen Hemminger , Chas Williams , "Wei Hu (Xavier)" Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <20200615155237.682a89af@hermes.lan> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:03:34 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200615155237.682a89af@hermes.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Aligning DPDK Link bonding with current standards terminology 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" On 6/15/20 6:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger 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. > > 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. > > For one brief release (20.08) keep both drivers and mark the bond on as deprecated. > It would also help if all the documentation and tests were checked to see if they > align with the current standard. > However, the bonding driver supports more than just the LACP protocol for managing members of a bond group. I suggest renaming the existing API that is objectionable and providing the old names for one release. I will see if I can get a copy of the 802.1AX 2020 revision.