[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202007060853.07B4D4F9@keescook>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 08:53:25 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...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 Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:15:38PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> 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 :-).
Ah-ha, cool. I think I found it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtS_t3FHWe0
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists