Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

Joe Perches
2020-07-08T15:51:09Z

On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 00:23 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Linux maintains a coding-style and its own idiomatic set of terminology.
> Update the style guidelines to recommend replacements for the terms
> master/slave and blacklist/whitelist.
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Acked-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
> Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
> 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>
> ---
> Changes since v1 [1]
> - Drop inclusive-terminology.rst, it is in the lore archives if the
> arguments are needed for future debates, but otherwise no pressing
> need to carry it in the tree (Linus, James)

Where did Linus publicly state this was unnecessary?

> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
[]
> @@ -319,6 +319,19 @@ 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 'master/slave' (or
> +'slave' independent of 'master') and 'blacklist/whitelist'. Recommended
> +replacements for 'master/slave' are: 'main/{secondary,subordinate}',
> +'primary/replica', '{initiator,requester}/{target,responder}',
> +'host/{device,proxy}', or 'leader/{performer,follower}'. Recommended
> +replacements for 'blacklist/whitelist' are: 'denylist/allowlist' or
> +'blocklist/passlist'.

Adding a reference to SeongJae Park's introduction of
scripts/deprecated_terms.txt or the like might help
make this list unnecessary if more terms are added.

> +Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI/API,
> +or when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol
> +specification that mandates those terms. For new specifications
> +translate specification usage of the terminology to the kernel coding
> +standard where possible.

I believe any existing code should not be changed,
not just code that is required to be maintained
for userspace.