linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: i2c: summary: document use of inclusive language

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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:14:56 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] docs: i2c: summary: document use of inclusive
 language


> I am wondering what the impact of this doc update is on my series[1]. I
> am looking for a straightforward recommendation for what terminology I,
> and hopefully others, should adopt *outside the i2c subsystem*, where
> Linux (typically) has a driver for the controller and is communicating
> with an unknown OS/firmware on the target.
> 
> a) Spec-compliant "controller/target"
> b) Linux implementation/spec hybrid "controller/client", or
> c) Linux implementation "adapter/client"
> 
> I prefer (a), FWIW, so do apparently reviewers on my series.

I also prefer (a), but people should know what (c) means when they look
around in the kernel source. I'll see how it goes with rewording this
patch accordingly.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)