Hello everyone,
I am asking for ideas and tomorrow I will open a public voting on the
mailing list. So, please add your suggestions now. The current ones
are:
- main/sub
- main/member
- parent/child
- base/child
- main/worker
- trunk/leg
- base/leg
Please, feel free to add other terms.
Thanks,
Fernando.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:31 PM William Caban Babilonia
<william.caban(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Another idea for the naming.
If we consider something like:
bond0:
- eth0
- eth1
- eth2
- eth3
bond0.vlan1
bond0.vlan2
etc,
- What about calling the physical interfaces "eth0-3" "members" of
bond0?
- What about calling "vlan1" "vlan2" are a child of bond0?
_W
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:33 AM Till Maas <till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am Do., 27. Aug. 2020 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Fernando Fernandez Mancera
> <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
>
> > Looking on the thread it seems we agree on two points:
> >
> > * We should use a generic word for codebase and for API VLAN/VXLAN
> > will user base/parent, as we are already doing.
> >
> > * Short words are good so controller/subordinate is too long and
> > interface/subinterface are too generic.
>
> my proposal should have been top and sub as the identifiers but I it
> would be spoken as top interface / sub interface.
>
>
> >
> > IMO, we should follow the kernel terms and we shouldn't create new
> > terms because it would be hard to understand for maintainers.
> >
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-team-approves-new-terminology-bans-te...
> >
> > I propose to use:
> >
> > "base/worker" or "main/worker".
>
> This would also lead to base interface and worker interface.
>
> base and worker are not mentioned in the zdnet article. So how about
> "main" and "sub" (short for subordinate).
>
> Can we maybe check at least with someone else involved in the upstream
> kernel to get their opinion if Jarod is not available?
>
> Thanks
> Till
>
> >
> > If there is no complaint on this I will work on this by next week, so
> > please, share your thoughts. :-)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Fernando.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Fernando Fernandez Mancera
> > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I meant "base/leg".
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:59 AM Fernando Fernandez Mancera
> > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:35 AM Till Maas <till(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Mo., 24. Aug. 2020 um 10:14 Uhr schrieb Fernando Fernandez
Mancera
> > > > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:58 AM Till Maas
<till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am Do., 13. Aug. 2020 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Gris Ge
<fge(a)redhat.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to suggest we deprecate our use of
`master/slave` in
> > > > > > > > nmstate project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And switching to these terminologies for interface
relationship in
> > > > > > > > the coming new release of nmstate-0.4.0:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * For bond/team/bridge:
> > > > > > > > * controller/subordinate
> > > > > > > > # For bridge, we can also use
controller/port.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > having shorter words would be nice, maybe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > trunk/leg
> > > > > > > base/leg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > base/dell
> > > > > > > mesa/dell
> > > > > > > base/vale
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > bulk/part
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * For VLAN/VxLAN:
> > > > > > > > * parent/child
> > > > > > > > * base/child
> > > > > > > > # Current API using `base-iface`, no need
to change
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some other suggestions:
> > > > > > > base/apex
> > > > > > > mesa/apex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > base/head
> > > > > > > trunk/head
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those are a little bit confusing for me. I expect both
"base" and
> > > > > > "head" would replace "master".
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. This might be because I did not think about the old
> > > > > analogy where one interface has power over the other but more
like how
> > > > > they are arranged.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bond interfaces are built on top of other interfaces, making the
other
> > > > > interfaces something at the bottom (like legs) and the bond
interface
> > > > > the trunk or base. Since VLAN interfaces are also built on top
of
> > > > > other interfaces, even on bond interfaces, this makes them
another top
> > > > > layer which is the head. But since there could be multiple VLAns,
arms
> > > > > might make more sense and then both arms and legs are limbs.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've been thinking on this and it would be good to use
only one option
> > > > > > for codebase, i.e using the same terms for all kind of
interfaces. For
> > > > > > the exposed API, I would not change VLAN/VXLAN as we are
already using
> > > > > > base/child terms. For other interfaces I noticed that we are
mixing up
> > > > > > "slaves" and "ports", I suggest to unify
it into a generic one. IMO,
> > > > > > the most generic are "controller/subordinate".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we agree on the generic word, I would use them for the
whole codebase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think? Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if the power structure is the best analogy, here.
Does a
> > > > > bond/bridge interface really control its subordinate interfaces?
Maybe
> > > > > it also does not matter that much, given that at some point the
words
> > > > > will be defined by usage. However, using long words might not
stick
> > > > > since people are lazy. A shorter alternative might be top
> > > > > interface/sub interface.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that is true. It would be nice to use a shorter word.. maybe
> > > > "parent/child"? As parents have power over their childs..
Not sure.
> > > > About interface/subinterface, I find them very lazy,
"interface" term
> > > > is all over the codebase so it could be very confusing for us, IMO.
> > > >
> > > > I also like "base/lag"-
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Till
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The trunk interface of eth1 is bond0
> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of the bridge br0
> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of an base interface
> > > > > > > eth1 is a dell interface of br0 (probably not so nice
because of the
> > > > > > > confusion with the manufacturer)
> > > > > > > eth1 is a vale interface of br0
> > > > > > > eth1 is a limb of br0
> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of br0
> > > > > > > br0 is the trunk for eth1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > eth1 is a part interface of the br0 bulk interface
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the base of VLAN eth1.100 is eth1
> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an apex interface of eth1
> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a head of eth1
> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk interface for eth1.100.
> > > > > > > eth1 is the base interface for eth1.100.
> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk for eth1.100
> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a limb of eth1
> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an arm of eth1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These seem to be my current favorites:
> > > > > > > leg/trunk/head
> > > > > > > limb/trunk/limb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Limb could be used both for the interfaces included in
a bridge or a
> > > > > > > bond. Not sure, if they need to have different
identifiers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example:
> > > > > > > > * The `controller` of eth1 is bond0 and
`controller_type` is bond
> > > > > > > > * The br0 is `controller` of eth1
> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is `port` of bridge br0 or
`subordinate` of bridge br0
> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is `subordinate` of bond0
> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is child of eth1
> > > > > > > > * The base interface of eth1.100 is eth1
> > > > > > > > * The parent of VLAN eth1.100 is eth1
> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is child of eth1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not English native speaker, please kindly
help on this if you have
> > > > > > > > better ideas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you very much!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for moving this forward!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Till
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Till Maas
> > > > > > > He/His/Him
> > > > > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System
Role
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered
seat: Grasbrunn,
> > > > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> > > > > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs,
Michael O'Neill,
> > > > > > > Thomas Savage
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Till Maas
> > > > > He/His/Him
> > > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
> > > > >
> > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat:
Grasbrunn,
> > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> > > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill,
> > > > > Thomas Savage
> > > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Till Maas
> He/His/Him
> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
> NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
>
> Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill,
> Thomas Savage
> _______________________________________________
> nmstate-devel mailing list -- nmstate-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to nmstate-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/nmstate-devel@lists.fedoraho...