Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

SeongJae Park via Ksummit-discuss
2020-07-08T09:28:42Z

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:12:03 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:56 PM SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2020 13:02:51 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Recent events have prompted a Linux position statement on inclusive
> > > terminology. Given that Linux maintains a coding-style and its own
> > > idiomatic set of terminology here is a proposal to answer the call to
> > > replace non-inclusive terminology.
> >
> > I'm glad to see this patch.
> >
> > >
> > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.clm>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
> >
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 12 ++++
> > > Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Documentation/process/index.rst | 1
> > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > index 2657a55c6f12..4b15ab671089 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > > @@ -319,6 +319,18 @@ If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another
> > > problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome.
> > > See chapter 6 (Functions).
> > >
> > > +For symbol names, avoid introducing new usage of the words 'slave' and
> > > +'blacklist'. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary',
> > > +'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or
> > > +'performer'. Recommended replacements for blacklist are: 'blocklist' or
> > > +'denylist'.
> >
> > I have submitted a couple of patches for automated encouragement of the the
> > inclusive terms and those merged in the -next tree[1,2] now. Nonetheless, the
> > version says only "please consider using 'denylist' and 'allowlist' instead of
> > 'blacklist' and 'whitelist'" for now. I think we could add more terms in there
> > based on this discussion. I could do that after this patch is merged, or you
> > could do that yourself in the next spin of this patch. Please do whatever you
> > feel comfort.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=7d0bea01dec27195d95d929c1ee49a4a74dd6671
> > [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=95a94258ceb27052f00b7e51588a128d20bf05ed
> >
>
> Thank you for stepping up to take this on, much appreciated.
>
> I think I'll leave it to you to fixup checkpatch after the final
> version of this patch is merged. It may be as simple as "See section 4
> 'Naming' in coding-style for suggested replacements".

Agreed, I will do that :)

Thanks,
SeongJae Park