Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/5] bonding: rename bond components

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:47:58 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:44 PM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri,  6 Nov 2020 15:04:31 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:  

quoted

The bonding driver's use of master and slave, while largely understood
in technical circles, poses a barrier for inclusion to some potential
members of the development and user community, due to the historical
context of masters and slaves, particularly in the United States. This
is a first full pass at replacing those phrases with more socially
inclusive ones, opting for bond to replace master and port to
replace slave, which is congruent with the bridge and team drivers.  

If we decide to go ahead with this, we should probably also use it as
an opportunity to clean up the more egregious checkpatch warnings, WDYT?

Plan minimum - don't add new ones ;)  

Hm. I hadn't actually looked at checkpatch output until now. It's...
noisy here. But I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that is from
existing issues, simply reported now due to all the renaming.

I don't think all of them:

-					tx_slave = slaves->arr[hash_index %
+					tx_port = ports->arr[hash_index %
 							       count];

It should be relatively trivial to find incremental warnings.

AFAIR checkpatch has a mode to run on a file, not on a patch, so you
can run it before and after and diff.

I can
certainly take a crack at cleanups, but I'd be worried about missing
another merge window trying to sort all of these, when they're not
directly related.

TBH I haven't followed the previous discussions too closely, as much 
as I applaud the effort I'm not signing up for reviewing 3.5kLoC of
renames, so I hope you can find someone to review this for you.

Another simple confidence booster would be a confirmation that given
patches do not change the object code.