Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, apw@canonical.com,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>, colin.king@canonical.com,
        sj38.park@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Recommend denylist/allowlist instead of blacklist/whitelist
In-Reply-To: <38ac91ab-ced3-8a4f-b825-4503fdcddeb8@suse.cz>
References: <20200611073804.10225-1-sjpark@amazon.com> <38ac91ab-ced3-8a4f-b825-4503fdcddeb8@suse.cz>
Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:40:59 +1000
Message-ID: <877dwcfitg.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> writes:
> On 11. 06. 20, 9:38, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:35:24 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 08:25 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
>>>> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
>>>>
>>>> This patchset 1) adds support of deprecated terms in the 'checkpatch.pl'
>>>> and 2) set the 'blacklist' and 'whitelist' as deprecated with
>>>> replacement suggestion of 'denylist' and 'allowlist', because the
>>>> suggestions are incontrovertible, doesn't make people hurt, and more
>>>> self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> While the checkpatch implementation is better,
>>> I'm still very "meh" about the whole concept.
>> 
>> I can understand your concerns about politic things in the second patch.
>> However, the concept of the 'deprecated terms' in the first patch is not
>> political but applicable to the general cases.  We already had the commits[1]
>> for a similar case.  So, could you ack for at least the first patch?
>> 
>> [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Hugs
>
> Fuck you! replaced by hug you! is a completely different story. The
> former is indeed offending to majority (despite it's quite common to
> tell someone "fuck you" in my subregion; OTOH hugging, no way -- I'm a
> straight non-communist). If it turns out that any word (e.g. blacklist)
> offends _majority_ (or at least a significant part of it) of some
> minority or culture, then sure, we should send it to /dev/null.
> should by no means listen to extreme individuals.

I agree you have to draw the line somewhere, there will always be
someone somewhere that's offended by something. But this seems like a
pretty easy case.

It's not like blacklist / whitelist are even good to begin with, it's
not obvious which is which, you have to learn that black is bad and
white is good.

Blocklist (or denylist?) and allowlist are actually more descriptive and
less likely to cause confusion.

cheers