Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:01:52 -0700

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Jarod Wilson <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:06:55 -0400
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:00 PM David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:  
> >>
> >> From: Michal Kubecek <[email-masked]>
> >> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:00:16 +0200
> >>  
> >> > Could we, please, avoid breaking existing userspace tools and scripts?  
> >>
> >> I will not let UAPI breakage, don't worry.  
> > 
> > Seeking some clarification here. Does the output of
> > /proc/net/bonding/<bond> fall under that umbrella as well?  
> 
> Yes, anything user facing must not break.
> 

For iproute2, would like better wording on the command
parameters (but accept the old names so as not to break scripts).
The old names can be highlighted as for compatibility only
or removed from the usage manual and usage.

Internally, variable names and function names can change iproute2
since the internal API's are not considered part of user API.