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>
 <20200707065612.8239-1-sjpark@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200707065612.8239-1-sjpark@amazon.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:12:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4ggm50tMnaCtMZJRz0j6ZO15buNUmTfk4sLf3AYkxS12w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
To:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>
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 11:56 PM SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2020 13:02:51 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> 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.
>
> I'm glad to see this patch.
>
> >
> > 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>
>
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
>
> > ---
> >  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'.
>
> I have submitted a couple of patches for automated encouragement of the the
> inclusive terms and those merged in the -next tree[1,2] now.  Nonetheless, the
> version says only "please consider using 'denylist' and 'allowlist' instead of
> 'blacklist' and 'whitelist'" for now.  I think we could add more terms in there
> based on this discussion.  I could do that after this patch is merged, or you
> could do that yourself in the next spin of this patch.  Please do whatever you
> feel comfort.
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=7d0bea01dec27195d95d929c1ee49a4a74dd6671
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=95a94258ceb27052f00b7e51588a128d20bf05ed
>

Thank you for stepping up to take this on, much appreciated.

I think I'll leave it to you to fixup checkpatch after the final
version of this patch is merged. It may be as simple as "See section 4
'Naming' in coding-style for suggested replacements".