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

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:26 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On 09-07-20, 13:11, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:30:01 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> escreveu:
> > >
> > > $ git grep -i -w -P '\w*slave\w*' drivers | \
> > >   cut -f1,2 -d/ | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -20 | cat -n
> > >      1         5683 drivers/net
> > >      2         2118 drivers/gpu
> > >      3         1807 drivers/dma
> > >      4         1389 drivers/i2c
> > >      5          866 drivers/interconnect
> > >      6          835 drivers/soundwire
> > >      7          821 drivers/spi
> > >      8          698 drivers/w1
> > >      9          508 drivers/media
> > >     10          481 drivers/infiniband
> > >     11          440 drivers/ata
> > >     12          317 drivers/scsi
> > >     13          267 drivers/fsi
> > >     14          240 drivers/tty
> > >     15          225 drivers/vme
> > >     16          223 drivers/staging
> > >     17          157 drivers/mmc
> > >     18          155 drivers/usb
> > >     19          141 drivers/video
> > >     20          140 drivers/char
> >
> > It sounds that, as soon after this patch gets merged, the mailing lists
> > will be flooded by lots of patches replacing such terms with something
> > else :-(
> >
> > Doing a quick look at the media subsystem, it sounds that most terms
> > come from I2C master/slave and DiSEqC terminology, as defined by their
> > specs (and the others seem to be derived from some hardware vendor
> > specific terminology).
> >
> > As they're all supported by the current specs, if one would want
> > to replace them, it should first ensure that the supporting specs
> > should be using a different terminology, as otherwise replacing
> > them would just make harder for anyone trying to understand the
> > code.
>
> I think waiting for specs may result in long delays, we all know how
> 'fast' spec bodies work!
>
> Putting my soundwire maintainer hat, I see more than 1K uses of 'slave'
> in the subsystem due to MIPI defined terms of SoundWire Master/Slave, so
> I am planning to replace that and not wait for MIPI to update the spec.

Sounds good.

> A similar approach where we discuss with relevant stakeholder and arrive
> at replacement terms and swap them would be great

Right, just like any other coding-style cleanup, stage it the way that
makes the most sense for the subsystem you maintain.
_______________________________________________
Ksummit-discuss mailing list
Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss