linux-kernel - Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

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]

Message-ID: <20200706181052.174c290a@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:10:52 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@...clm>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:31:49 +0300
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> > 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'.  
> 
> "Subordinate" means that they are unequal, and inequality is a big issue. This

And if two objects are unequal, then that seems to be an appropriate
term. We are not concerned about the inequality of devices.

-- Steve