Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 07 Jun 2020 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20200607.164532.964293508393444353.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     stephen@networkplumber.org
Cc:     o.rempel@pengutronix.de, andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        hkallweit1@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        mkubecek@suse.cz, linville@tuxdriver.com, david@protonic.nl,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mkl@pengutronix.de,
        marex@denx.de, christian.herber@nxp.com, amitc@mellanox.com,
        petrm@mellanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration
 support
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200607153019.3c8d6650@hermes.lan>
References: <20200526091025.25243-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
        <20200607153019.3c8d6650@hermes.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 15:30:19 -0700

> Open source projects have been working hard to remove the terms master and slave
> in API's and documentation. Apparently, Linux hasn't gotten the message.
> It would make sense not to introduce new instances.

Would you also be against, for example, the use of the terminology
expressing the "death" of allocated registers in a compiler backend,
for example?

How far do you plan take this resistence of terminology when it
clearly has a well defined usage and meaning in a specific technical
realm which is entirely disconnected to what the terms might imply,
meaning wise, in other realms?

And if you are going to say not to use this terminology, you must
suggest a reasonable (and I do mean _reasonable_) well understood
and _specific_ replacement.

Thank you.