lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
Date
On 07/07/2020 01:10, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:31:49 +0300
> Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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'.
>>
>> "Subordinate" means that they are unequal, and inequality is a big issue. This
>
> And if two objects are unequal, then that seems to be an appropriate
> term. We are not concerned about the inequality of devices.

Totally agree with you! But do we care then whether two _devices_ or _objects_
are slave-master? Can't see how it fundamentally differs.

--
Pavel Begunkov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-07 00:20    [W:0.091 / U:7.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site