[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200706182819.3467fa32@oasis.local.home>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 18:28:19 -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 01:17:47 +0300
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> Totally agree with you! But do we care then whether two _devices_ or _objects_
> are slave-master? Can't see how it fundamentally differs.
The term slave carries a lot more meaning than subordinate. I replied to
someone else but later realized that the person sent me their reply
offlist, so my reply to them was also offlist. What I told them was,
back in college (decades ago), when I first mentioned "master/slave" in
conversation (I think it was about hard drives), a person in that
conversation stated that those were not very nice terms to use. I blew
it off back then, but after listening to more people, I found that
using "slave" even to describe a device is not something that people
care to hear about.
And in actuality, does one device actually enslave another device? I
think that terminology is misleading to begin with.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists