[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2007131043070.2322@hadrien>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tech-board-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3] CodingStyle: Inclusive
Terminology
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2020 20:14:27 +0200,
> Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > +Recommended replacements for 'blacklist/whitelist' are:
> > + 'denylist / allowlist'
> > + 'blocklist / passlist'
>
> I started looking through the tree now and noticed there are lots of
> patterns like "whitelisted" or "blacklisted". How can the words fit
> for those? Actually, there are two cases like:
>
> - Foo is blacklisted
> - Allow to load the non-whitelisted cards
>
> Currently I'm replacing the former with "Foo is in denylist", but not
In the denylist?
julia
> sure about the latter case. I thought Kees mentioned about this, but
> don't remember the proposal...
>
> In anyway, I'm for the action:
> Acked-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists