[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8c0c1050-3beb-86f6-f184-4687acffd61d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:15:38 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...il.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com,
ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Chris Mason <clm@...clm>, expensivestephen@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
Inclusive Terminology
On 7/5/20 3:10 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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). :)
Actually, the manual pages are ahead of the game only thanks to
a nice presentation last year @OSS from Stephen Kenigbolo :-).
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists