lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
    On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:02:51PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
    > > > Recent events have prompted a Linux position statement on inclusive
    > > > terminology. Given that Linux maintains a coding-style and its own
    > > > idiomatic set of terminology here is a proposal to answer the call to
    > > > replace non-inclusive terminology.
    > > >
    > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
    > > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.clm>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
    > >
    > > (nit: isn't this a Co-developed-by chain, not a SoB chain?)
    > >
    > > Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
    > >
    > > Comments below...
    > >
    > > > ---
    > > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 12 ++++
    > > > Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++
    > > > Documentation/process/index.rst | 1
    > > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
    > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
    > > >
    > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
    > > > index 2657a55c6f12..4b15ab671089 100644
    > > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
    > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
    > > > @@ -319,6 +319,18 @@ If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another
    > > > problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome.
    > > > See chapter 6 (Functions).
    > > >
    > > > +For symbol names, avoid introducing new usage of the words 'slave' and
    > > > +'blacklist'. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary',
    > > > +'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or
    > > > +'performer'. Recommended replacements for blacklist are: 'blocklist' or
    > > > +'denylist'.
    > >
    > > Keeping "master" in a "master/slave" pairing (i.e. replacing only
    > > "slave") seems incomplete to me. If "master" is paired with "slave", it
    > > should be replaced too. Potential examples: 'primary', 'leader', 'principle',
    > > 'controller', 'sender', 'initial'.
    >
    > Yes, this matches Andy's feedback, will add.
    >
    > > Similarly, for "whitelist/blacklist", "whitelist" needs to replaced when
    > > "blacklist" has been. For example, seccomp documentation[1] uses
    > > "allow-list" and "deny-list".
    > >
    > > [1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html
    >
    > Oh, good to know will make that change.

    Looks like that change already happened. And the new language is IMO
    not vastly better than the old language. I'll send a patch.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-07-10 18:53    [W:4.316 / U:2.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site