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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <79214066-3886-e0ef-f26e-8cb3d53404be@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <79214066-3886-e0ef-f26e-8cb3d53404be@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:04:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hOJHazV5UdE_Km4AWTvZvsrNtHR+2LUiOTYsDttRZZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.clm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/20 2:02 PM, 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.
> >
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to work on this patch and updating the
> coding-style.rst with the with inclusive terminology guidelines and
> adding a new document outlining the scope.
>
> The suggestions you made will help us adapt inclusive terminology
> for the current times, and also help us move toward terms that are
> intuitive and easier to understand keeping our global developer
> community in mind.
>
> Allowlist/denylist terms are intuitive and action based which have a
> globally uniform meaning.
>
> Terms such as "whitelist" etc are contextual, hence assume contextual
> knowledge on the part of the reader.
>
> A couple comments below:
>
> > 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>
> > ---
> >   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'.
>
> allowlist and blocklist or denylist are lot more intuitive than
> white/black in any case.

Yes, that was interesting to me when I first grappled with this. The
replacements are more direct.

I was going to go with blocklist/passlist as the common shorthand
recommendation, but if a subsystem picks allowlist/denylist as a local
custom that's fine too.

[..]
> Please add my Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
> or Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

Thanks Shuah.