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

Jakub Kicinski
2020-11-09T18:54:53Z

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:47:58 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:44 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:04:31 -0500 Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > 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.