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>
 <202007041703.51F4059CA@keescook> <CAPcyv4jy6cKLNBhi9HCUP=f6GC4bM_iw_-U8o0uMrO8OX1SWTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jy6cKLNBhi9HCUP=f6GC4bM_iw_-U8o0uMrO8OX1SWTw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:52:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrUvfB6rLWMx=KOsFxbCowz3H2atSCbq-ecHQ5mNFe=e3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.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 9:30 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:02:51PM -0700, 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.
> > >
> > > 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>
> >
> > (nit: isn't this a Co-developed-by chain, not a SoB chain?)
> >
> > Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >
> > Comments below...
> >
> > > ---
> > >  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'.
> >
> > Keeping "master" in a "master/slave" pairing (i.e. replacing only
> > "slave") seems incomplete to me. If "master" is paired with "slave", it
> > should be replaced too. Potential examples: 'primary', 'leader', 'principle',
> > 'controller', 'sender', 'initial'.
>
> Yes, this matches Andy's feedback, will add.
>
> > Similarly, for "whitelist/blacklist", "whitelist" needs to replaced when
> > "blacklist" has been. For example, seccomp documentation[1] uses
> > "allow-list" and "deny-list".
> >
> > [1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html
>
> Oh, good to know will make that change.

Looks like that change already happened.  And the new language is IMO
not vastly better than the old language.  I'll send a patch.