[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202007041804.B5E229E2B6@keescook>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:10:17 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Chris Mason <clm@...clm>
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
Inclusive Terminology
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.)
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). :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists