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;
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.clm>
References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <920e6dc0-628b-9bad-926a-d1238a373cda@infradead.org>
 <CAPM=9ty0tiL_qM_UFv0S0VtARKz_f-Anngc+amDM5LjGAHazhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFhKne9MA_G-UsvBFfX-gZRcu9Gb7Xt7UxQ14MTppdU3X1VYdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202007041804.B5E229E2B6@keescook>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <0a7dd50b-b4b3-d9fa-dbb0-8c30d522b945@infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 4 Jul 2020 19:44:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <202007041804.B5E229E2B6@keescook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/4/20 6:10 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> Left-right tree makes no sense. It doesn't distinguish the rbtree from its
>> predecessor the avl tree.  I don't think it's helpful to rename a standard
>> piece of computing terminology unless it's actually hurting us to have it.
>> Obviously if it were called a "master-slave" tree, I would be in favour of
>> renaming it.
> 
> (No one has suggested renaming red/black trees, so I think the
> slippery-slope argument can be set aside here.)

Did you read this message?

https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit-discuss/CAPM=9ty0tiL_qM_UFv0S0VtARKz_f-Anngc+amDM5LjGAHazhA@mail.gmail.com/

> As for the actual proposal on white/black-list, I've always been annoyed
> by the poor description it provides (and I get to see it A LOT being
> the seccomp maintainer). I welcome allow/deny-list (though the change is
> not new for seccomp -- the man pages were updated last year (thanks
> mkerrisk). :)
> 


-- 
~Randy