From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEF0C433E4 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA5C205CB for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="Vj+10LYg"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="Vj+10LYg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729905AbgGMPGy (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:54 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:33838 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729844AbgGMPGx (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:06:53 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81808EE2A2; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:06:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1594652812; bh=Wv28Q89o7zHc6Vbye8fvipuLhXUbfn/tNh6dihLUgYo=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Vj+10LYgvpVxNV9mMHAIMEKUcWsvjvWTiCRT2Rc4m2JcWnKIBuHWwKXmcOSeUUSB0 qhfLGQC0oyEWNdy3sXjvAiZV+zsO56kgfmlTqeIwMK9hjiGkF7K+kF9YBYT6JIPtl8 U8UwpMMyjSHTiLyPKQ18A+/rfrsdNFJXA8xXCqes= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IwuWQz25J0Fo; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1758B8EE051; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:06:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1594652812; bh=Wv28Q89o7zHc6Vbye8fvipuLhXUbfn/tNh6dihLUgYo=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Vj+10LYgvpVxNV9mMHAIMEKUcWsvjvWTiCRT2Rc4m2JcWnKIBuHWwKXmcOSeUUSB0 qhfLGQC0oyEWNdy3sXjvAiZV+zsO56kgfmlTqeIwMK9hjiGkF7K+kF9YBYT6JIPtl8 U8UwpMMyjSHTiLyPKQ18A+/rfrsdNFJXA8xXCqes= Message-ID: <1594652811.3750.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v3] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology From: James Bottomley To: Takashi Iwai , Dan Williams Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , SeongJae Park , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Dave Airlie , Christian Brauner , Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:06:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <159423201991.2466245.8461410729774664077.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 10:02 +0200, 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 > sure about the latter case. I thought Kees mentioned about this, but > don't remember the proposal... Remember these are suggestions for going forwards, not requirements for changing everything. We tend to be a community that likes make work projects because they're easier to do than solving the hard problems, but since we have over 100k occurrences of the various words in the kernel, changing them all would cause massive churn and disrupt forward development, which would cause way more harm than any gain from the change. James