primary/secondary is even an alternative to master/slave? To me it means that they're on the same level and can do the same thing, while master means that it operates over slave devices.
Using more accurate terms such as those on the kernel’s list immediately tells you the nature of the relationship AND doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable. That seems worth it alone, and it’s really unclear what good reason could explain why a few people would spend far more time complaining about work which someone else will do than it will take to complete that work.
> Although they were in common use, the terms "master" and "slave" do not appear anymore in current versions of the ATA specifications, or any current documentation. Since ATA-2 the two devices are referred to as "Device 0" and "Device 1", respectively. This is more appropriate since the two devices have always operated, since the earliest ATA specification, as equal peers on the cable, with neither having control or priority over the other.
> It is a common myth that the controller on the master drive assumes control over the slave drive, or that the master drive may claim priority of communication over the other device on the same ATA interface. In fact, the drivers in the host operating system perform the necessary arbitration and serialization, and each drive's onboard controller operates independently of the other.
> While it may have remained in colloquial use, the PC industry has not used ATA master/slave terminology in many years.
The slave listens to the master and responds when asked to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaybros/comments/68rrmi/whats_the_i...