linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [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]

Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@...clm>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
 Inclusive Terminology

On 7/7/20 8:24 AM, Bird, Tim wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steven Rostedt
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300
>> Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive
>>>> even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar
>>>> checker. ;)
>>>
>>> How about yeslist and nolist? ;-)
>>
>> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
>>
>> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
> 
> I think it depends on the context.  I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term.  In other words,
> yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> what the effect will be.  With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> model of what the code is going to do.

That matches what I was about to say:
Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.

-- 
~Randy