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:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:19:35 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
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
Message-ID: <20200609101935.5716b3bd@hermes.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20200607.164532.964293508393444353.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20200526091025.25243-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
        <20200607153019.3c8d6650@hermes.lan>
        <20200607.164532.964293508393444353.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> 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.

How many times have you or Linus argued about variable naming.
Yes, words do matter and convey a lot of implied connotation and meaning.

Most projects and standards bodies are taking a stance on fixing the
language. The IETF is has proposed making changes as well.

There are a very specific set of trigger words and terms that
should be fixed. Most of these terms do have better alternatives.

A common example is that master/slave is unclear and would be clearer
as primary/secondary or active/backup or controller/worker.

Most of networking is based on standards. When the standards wording changes
(and it will happen soon); then Linux should also change the wording in the
source, api and documentation.


See:


[0] - <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/Language/NonSexist/vuw.non-sexist-language-guidelines.txt>, <https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/933011085594066944>
[1] - <https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692>
[2] - <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605>
[3] - <https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/rust-buildbot/issues/2>, <https://github.com/rust-community/foss-events-planner/issues/58>
[4] - <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248>
[5] - <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/geary/issues/324>
[6] - https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html
[7] - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-terminology-01.txt