linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:19:35 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     o.rempel@...gutronix.de, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
        mkubecek@...e.cz, linville@...driver.com, david@...tonic.nl,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        marex@...x.de, christian.herber@....com, amitc@...lanox.com,
        petrm@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool v1] netlink: add master/slave configuration
 support

On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 15:30:19 -0700
> 
> > Open source projects have been working hard to remove the terms master and slave
> > in API's and documentation. Apparently, Linux hasn't gotten the message.
> > It would make sense not to introduce new instances.  
> 
> Would you also be against, for example, the use of the terminology
> expressing the "death" of allocated registers in a compiler backend,
> for example?
> 
> How far do you plan take this resistence of terminology when it
> clearly has a well defined usage and meaning in a specific technical
> realm which is entirely disconnected to what the terms might imply,
> meaning wise, in other realms?
> 
> And if you are going to say not to use this terminology, you must
> suggest a reasonable (and I do mean _reasonable_) well understood
> and _specific_ replacement.
> 
> Thank you.

How many times have you or Linus argued about variable naming.
Yes, words do matter and convey a lot of implied connotation and meaning.

Most projects and standards bodies are taking a stance on fixing the
language. The IETF is has proposed making changes as well.

There are a very specific set of trigger words and terms that
should be fixed. Most of these terms do have better alternatives.

A common example is that master/slave is unclear and would be clearer
as primary/secondary or active/backup or controller/worker.

Most of networking is based on standards. When the standards wording changes
(and it will happen soon); then Linux should also change the wording in the
source, api and documentation.


See:


[0] - <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mjw/Language/NonSexist/vuw.non-sexist-language-guidelines.txt>, <https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/933011085594066944>
[1] - <https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692>
[2] - <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605>
[3] - <https://github.com/rust-lang-deprecated/rust-buildbot/issues/2>, <https://github.com/rust-community/foss-events-planner/issues/58>
[4] - <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248>
[5] - <https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/geary/issues/324>
[6] - https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html
[7] - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-terminology-01.txt