[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200709124327.369781a0@coco.lan>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 12:43:27 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Tibor Raschko <tibrasch@...il.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
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>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle:
Inclusive Terminology
Em Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:58:21 +0200
Tibor Raschko <tibrasch@...il.com> escreveu:
> > Allowlist/denylist terms are intuitive and action based which have a
> > globally uniform meaning.
>
> Nobody has a problem understanding "blacklist" and "whitelist". These
> are universally understood words even outside of computing. Claiming
> that we need clearer alternatives is smoke and mirrors.
Actually, as a non-native English speaker, the first time I saw
"<color>list", I had to do some research in order to understand what it
means :-)
That reminds me: what about "graylist"?
For coherency, if "blacklist/whitelist" won't be used anymore, an
alternative to graylist should also be provided.
Right now, it seems that only ACPI uses it:
$ git grep -i graylist
drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.c:static void acpi_pm_check_graylist(struct pci_dev *dev)
drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.c: acpi_pm_check_graylist);
drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.c: acpi_pm_check_graylist);
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists