[dpdk-dev] [RFC] replace master/slave with primary/secondary

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Jun 5, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:14:50 +0000
> "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:
> 
>>> organization is a little specific, with an lcore that does most init work
>>> and spawns the others, but then runs the application like all others.
>>> 
>>> I'd propose instead leader lcore - there is this idea that the leader
>>> is still a member of the team and will participate in the work.
>>> 
>>> Leader / worker?
>>> 
>> 
>> I personally doubt such changes are needed at all.
>> Code churn will be massive for both DPDK itself and related user projects.
>> With no real gain in return, from my perspective.
>> Konstantin
>> 
> 
> Your concern is valid but the issue does need to be addressed.
> If now when? This is as a good a time as any to do it.
> 
> Increasing diversity and inclusion is an overarching goal of many organizations
> include my employer(Microsoft), the parent organization of DPDK(LF)
> and my values.
> 
> Following values is more important than minor replacement of text in API.

I feel like Konstantin is correct here.

If we were using these terms for humans or groups of humans, then I would agree they should be changed. We need to take into account the context of the reference to these words. I agree some words should never be used in any context, but these terms are very reasonable in the context of DPDK and networking.

If everyone wants to accept the code churn (and it will effect a large number of applications, plus back porting will be more difficult IMO), then we can do it.