[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Jarkko Sakkinen (15):
  MIPS: replace **** with a hug
  Documentation: replace **** with a hug
  drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
  m68k: replace **** with a hug
  parisc: replace **** with a hug
  cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
  ide: replace **** with a hug
  media: replace **** with a hug
  mtd: replace **** with a hug
  net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
  scsi: replace **** with a hug
  inotify: replace **** with a hug
  irq: replace **** with a hug
  lib: replace **** with a hug
  net: replace **** with a hug

 Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst      |  2 +-
 arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h              |  2 +-
 arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c                    | 24 +++++++++----------
 arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c               |  2 +-
 arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c               |  2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c                 |  2 +-
 .../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c   |  2 +-
 .../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc    |  2 +-
 drivers/ide/cmd640.c                          |  2 +-
 drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c                     |  8 ++++---
 drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c                     |  2 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c             |  4 ++--
 drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h                      |  2 +-
 fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c              |  2 +-
 kernel/irq/timings.c                          |  2 +-
 lib/vsprintf.c                                |  2 +-
 net/core/skbuff.c                             |  2 +-
 17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

-- 
2.19.1

[PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c      | 24 ++++++++++++------------
 arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c b/arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c
index a1d2c4ae0d1b..c755c4c92fa9 100644
--- a/arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c
+++ b/arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static int pci_conf0_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at it for real ...
 	 */
 	if (cf == (PCI_VENDOR_ID_SGI | (PCI_DEVICE_ID_SGI_IOC3 << 16)))
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static int pci_conf0_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 oh_my_gawd:
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at the wrong register.
 	 */
 	if ((where >= 0x14 && where < 0x40) || (where >= 0x48)) {
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int pci_conf0_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
 	 * anything but 32-bit words ...
 	 */
 	addr = &bridge->b_type0_cfg_dev[slot].f[fn].l[where >> 2];
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at it for real ...
 	 */
 	if (cf == (PCI_VENDOR_ID_SGI | (PCI_DEVICE_ID_SGI_IOC3 << 16)))
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 oh_my_gawd:
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at the wrong register.
 	 */
 	if ((where >= 0x14 && where < 0x40) || (where >= 0x48)) {
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
 	 * anything but 32-bit words ...
 	 */
 	bridge->b_pci_cfg = (busno << 16) | (slot << 11);
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static int pci_conf0_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at it for real ...
 	 */
 	if (cf == (PCI_VENDOR_ID_SGI | (PCI_DEVICE_ID_SGI_IOC3 << 16)))
@@ -213,14 +213,14 @@ static int pci_conf0_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 oh_my_gawd:
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to touch the wrong register.
 	 */
 	if ((where >= 0x14 && where < 0x40) || (where >= 0x48))
 		return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
 	 * anything but 32-bit words ...
 	 */
 	addr = &bridge->b_type0_cfg_dev[slot].f[fn].l[where >> 2];
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int pci_conf1_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to look at it for real ...
 	 */
 	if (cf == (PCI_VENDOR_ID_SGI | (PCI_DEVICE_ID_SGI_IOC3 << 16)))
@@ -281,14 +281,14 @@ static int pci_conf1_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
 oh_my_gawd:
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't even give the
 	 * generic PCI code a chance to touch the wrong register.
 	 */
 	if ((where >= 0x14 && where < 0x40) || (where >= 0x48))
 		return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
 
 	/*
-	 * IOC3 is fucking fucked beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
+	 * IOC3 is hugging hugged beyond belief ...  Don't try to access
 	 * anything but 32-bit words ...
 	 */
 	addr = &bridge->b_type0_cfg_dev[slot].f[fn].l[where >> 2];
diff --git a/arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c b/arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c
index b69daa02401b..50f04fe491ca 100644
--- a/arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c
+++ b/arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void __init plat_mem_setup(void)
 	board_be_init = ip22_be_init;
 
 	/* Init the INDY HPC I/O controller.  Need to call this before
-	 * fucking with the memory controller because it needs to know the
+	 * hugging with the memory controller because it needs to know the
 	 * boardID and whether this is a Guiness or a FullHouse machine.
 	 */
 	sgihpc_init();
-- 
2.19.1

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27:10AM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>

Since v17 of the SGX patch set, my cover letters get cut for some
reason. I receive them myself but they don't appear on kernel
lists. I don't what the hug is going on :-/

Here's the cover letter for this patch set:

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Nikolay Borisov]

On 30.11.18 г. 21:57 ч., Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27:10AM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Since v17 of the SGX patch set, my cover letters get cut for some
> reason. I receive them myself but they don't appear on kernel
> lists. I don't what the hug is going on :-/
> 
> Here's the cover letter for this patch set:
> 
> From 386420215a93d2eb5bbcb061e914cfb16f456de8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:25:40 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
> 
> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

I find it quite ridiculous that grown up people are engaging at yet
another coc-related conversation and are on the way to blowing it out of
proportions. Let's focus on improving the ACTUAL code what's the point
to bikeshed on the word?

I've seen people before me comment that some comments are plainly out of
date and that warrants their removal but otherwise nitpicking things
like that. It seems common sense is very scant these days...



> 
> Jarkko Sakkinen (15):
>   MIPS: replace **** with a hug
>   Documentation: replace **** with a hug
>   drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
>   m68k: replace **** with a hug
>   parisc: replace **** with a hug
>   cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
>   ide: replace **** with a hug
>   media: replace **** with a hug
>   mtd: replace **** with a hug
>   net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
>   scsi: replace **** with a hug
>   inotify: replace **** with a hug
>   irq: replace **** with a hug
>   lib: replace **** with a hug
>   net: replace **** with a hug
> 
>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst      |  2 +-
>  arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h              |  2 +-
>  arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c                    | 24 +++++++++----------
>  arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c               |  2 +-
>  arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c               |  2 +-
>  drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c                 |  2 +-
>  .../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c   |  2 +-
>  .../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc    |  2 +-
>  drivers/ide/cmd640.c                          |  2 +-
>  drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c                     |  8 ++++---
>  drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c                     |  2 +-
>  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c             |  4 ++--
>  drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h                      |  2 +-
>  fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c              |  2 +-
>  kernel/irq/timings.c                          |  2 +-
>  lib/vsprintf.c                                |  2 +-
>  net/core/skbuff.c                             |  2 +-
>  17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:06:30PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> I find it quite ridiculous that grown up people are engaging at yet
> another coc-related conversation and are on the way to blowing it out of
> proportions. Let's focus on improving the ACTUAL code what's the point
> to bikeshed on the word?
> 
> I've seen people before me comment that some comments are plainly out of
> date and that warrants their removal but otherwise nitpicking things
> like that. It seems common sense is very scant these days...

I have absolutely nothing against CoC.

If you look up from LKML, there total zero posts from criticizing of
having such. OK, maybe I find it bit too high-level, and yeah, this
patch set has been useful to know where the line is. I can go through
the commits and think more appropriate alternatives (thus the RFC-tag).

Thanks.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Nikolay Borisov]

On 30.11.18 г. 23:50 ч., Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:06:30PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> I find it quite ridiculous that grown up people are engaging at yet
>> another coc-related conversation and are on the way to blowing it out of
>> proportions. Let's focus on improving the ACTUAL code what's the point
>> to bikeshed on the word?
>>
>> I've seen people before me comment that some comments are plainly out of
>> date and that warrants their removal but otherwise nitpicking things
>> like that. It seems common sense is very scant these days...
> 
> I have absolutely nothing against CoC.

I didn't mean you are against the CoC, I meant it's ridiculous to follow
it so closely.

And regarding 'fuck', I believe this is rather pertinent as to why this
patchset is unnecessary:

https://ia801406.us.archive.org/30/items/JackWagnerattr.MontyPythontheWordFuck/The_Word_Fuck.ogg

> 
> If you look up from LKML, there total zero posts from criticizing of
> having such. OK, maybe I find it bit too high-level, and yeah, this
> patch set has been useful to know where the line is. I can go through
> the commits and think more appropriate alternatives (thus the RFC-tag).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27:10AM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

OK, that's it - from now on I'm switching to use of CoC as
a general-purpose obscene verb.  As in "this protocol is
completely CoCed in head", etc.

Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] MIPS: replace **** with a hug

[Randy Dunlap]

On 11/30/18 1:13 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27:10AM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> OK, that's it - from now on I'm switching to use of CoC as
> a general-purpose obscene verb.  As in "this protocol is
> completely CoCed in head", etc.
> 

ack that.

-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
"hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
follow true Doggo meme style).

"This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
"Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
etc... "hug" is odd.

Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?

-Kees

>
> Jarkko Sakkinen (15):
>   MIPS: replace **** with a hug
>   Documentation: replace **** with a hug
>   drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
>   m68k: replace **** with a hug
>   parisc: replace **** with a hug
>   cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
>   ide: replace **** with a hug
>   media: replace **** with a hug
>   mtd: replace **** with a hug
>   net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
>   scsi: replace **** with a hug
>   inotify: replace **** with a hug
>   irq: replace **** with a hug
>   lib: replace **** with a hug
>   net: replace **** with a hug
>
>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst      |  2 +-
>  arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h              |  2 +-
>  arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c                    | 24 +++++++++----------
>  arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c               |  2 +-
>  arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c               |  2 +-
>  drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c                 |  2 +-
>  .../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c   |  2 +-
>  .../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc    |  2 +-
>  drivers/ide/cmd640.c                          |  2 +-
>  drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c                     |  8 ++++---
>  drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c                     |  2 +-
>  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c             |  4 ++--
>  drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h                      |  2 +-
>  fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c              |  2 +-
>  kernel/irq/timings.c                          |  2 +-
>  lib/vsprintf.c                                |  2 +-
>  net/core/skbuff.c                             |  2 +-
>  17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.19.1
>


-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
><jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.

I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...

Thanks,
Davidlohr

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> technical comments? This is all beyond me...

Agree, this is insanity.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Michael Schmitz]

Am 01.12.2018 um 09:12 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
>>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
>>
>> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
>> technical comments? This is all beyond me...
>
> Agree, this is insanity.

Irony? Parody?

That's what crossed my mind, to be brutally honest. Group hug, anyone?

For the VME vectors case: no need to hug, just don't mess with them.

Cheers,

	Michael

(Waiting for Adrian's ticket machines to swoop down and take me out now 
... in 24 hours ...)

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[David Miller]

From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700

> On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
>>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
>> 
>> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
>> technical comments? This is all beyond me...
> 
> Agree, this is insanity.

And even worse it is censorship.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Abuse]

On Friday, 30 November 2018 20:35:07 GMT David Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
> 
> > On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> >>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> >> 
> >> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> >> technical comments? This is all beyond me...
> > 
> > Agree, this is insanity.
> 
> And even worse it is censorship.
> 

Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck

I assume I will now be barred.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[David Miller]

From: Abuse <abuse@2.abuse.bgcomp.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000

> I assume I will now be barred.

Perhaps, but not because you said fuck.  It would be because you're
intentionally creating a disturbance on the list and making it more
difficult for developers to get their work done and intentionally
creating a distraction and a hostile environment for the discussion at
hand.

That would not be censorship.

There is a big difference.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Abuse]

On Friday, 30 November 2018 20:42:28 GMT David Miller wrote:
> From: Abuse <abuse@2.abuse.bgcomp.co.uk>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000
> 
> > I assume I will now be barred.
> 
> Perhaps, but not because you said fuck.  It would be because you're
> intentionally creating a disturbance on the list and making it more
> difficult for developers to get their work done and intentionally
> creating a distraction and a hostile environment for the discussion at
> hand.
> 
> That would not be censorship.
> 
> There is a big difference.
> 

I would beg to differ, as would calling the removal of the word 'Fuck' censorship.

It's a word I find is totally unnecessary in normal public usage.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:39:01 +0000
Abuse <abuse@2.abuse.bgcomp.co.uk> wrote:

> On Friday, 30 November 2018 20:35:07 GMT David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
> >   
> > > On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:  
> > >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >>   
> > >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > >>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:  
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.  
> > >> 
> > >> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> > >> technical comments? This is all beyond me...  
> > > 
> > > Agree, this is insanity.  
> > 
> > And even worse it is censorship.
> >   
> 
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> Hug
> 
> I assume I will now be barred.
> 

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:35:07PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:12:26 -0700
> 
> > On 11/30/18 12:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> >>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> >> 
> >> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> >> technical comments? This is all beyond me...
> > 
> > Agree, this is insanity.
> 
> And even worse it is censorship.

It is not close to a cencorship, especially when I used RFC tag, which
essentially says that I'm not saying "please take this", right?

Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then? I read it through
on my plane trip with an eye glass.

Is cursing OK?

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[David Miller]

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:42:33 -0800

> Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then?

Regardless of what I think, as others have showen the CoC explicitly
does not apply to existing code.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/30/18 2:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:42:33 -0800
> 
>> Can you tell how the CoC should be interpreted then?
> 
> Regardless of what I think, as others have showen the CoC explicitly
> does not apply to existing code.

And with that, can we please put an end to this thread (and patchset)?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[David Miller]

From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:56:52 -0800

> I hope this is some kind of joke.

Whether or not it is a joke, it is censorship.

And because of that I have no intention to apply any patches like this
to any code I am in charge of.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:56:52AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> technical comments? This is all beyond me...

Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)

I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things that I
did was to read the new CoC properly.

This a direct quote from the CoC:

"Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
advances or requests for sexual favors."

Doesn't this fall into this category?

Your argument is not that great because you could say that from any LKML
discussion. If you don't like hugging, please propose something else :-)

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 12:55 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:56:52AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> > 
> > I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by
> > reading technical comments? This is all beyond me...
> 
> Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)
> 
> I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things
> that I did was to read the new CoC properly.
> 
> This a direct quote from the CoC:
> 
> "Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
> language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
> inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
> advances or requests for sexual favors."
> 
> Doesn't this fall into this category?

No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most heavily censored
medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.

> Your argument is not that great because you could say that from any
> LKML discussion. If you don't like hugging, please propose something
> else
> :-)

The interpretation document also says this:

   ontributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate
   language. Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct
   will not be addressed now as a violation.

So that definitely means there should be no hunting down of existing
comments in kernel code.

James

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
> necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most heavily censored
> medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
> contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.

This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[David Miller]

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
>> No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
>> necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most heavily censored
>> medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
>> contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
> 
> This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
> it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
> whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.

It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.

That part seems very explicit to me.

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:48:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't
> >> necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most heavily censored
> >> medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
> >> contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
> > 
> > This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as
> > it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the
> > whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.
> 
> It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
> is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.
> 
> That part seems very explicit to me.

Well, now that I re-read it, it was this part to be exact:

"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

How this should be interpreted?

I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to
always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 13:54 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:48:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800
> > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
> > > > isn't
> > > > necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most heavily
> > > > censored
> > > > medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain
> > > > contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
> > > 
> > > This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native
> > > speaker as
> > > it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did
> > > through the
> > > whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.
> > 
> > It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language
> > is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code.
> > 
> > That part seems very explicit to me.
> 
> Well, now that I re-read it, it was this part to be exact:
> 
> "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
> temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
> they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
> 
> How this should be interpreted?

Firstly, this is *only* about contributions going forward.  The
interpretation document says we don't have to look back into the
repository and we definitely can't remove something from git that's
already been committed.

As a Maintainer, if you feel bad language is inappropriate for your
subsystem then you say so and reject with that reason patches that come
in containing it (suggesting alternative rewordings).  However, your
determination about what is or isn't acceptable in your subsystem isn't
binding on other maintainers, who may have different standards ... this
is identical to what we do with coding, like your insistence on one
line per variable or other subsystem's insistence on reverse christmas
tree for includes ...

James


> I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to
> always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 13:44 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
> > isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most
> > heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered
> > acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
> 
> This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker
> as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did
> through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced
> from it.

OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as
bad language isn't explicitly banned.  The thing which differentiates
simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language",
which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target.

So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the
hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a
CoC violation.  If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of
the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is.  Even non-native
English speakers should be able to determine target and context,
because that's the essence of meaning.

James

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:57:49PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 13:44 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > No because use of what some people consider to be bad language
> > > isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading.  Our most
> > > heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered
> > > acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.
> > 
> > This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker
> > as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did
> > through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced
> > from it.
> 
> OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as
> bad language isn't explicitly banned.  The thing which differentiates
> simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language",
> which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target.
> 
> So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the
> hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a
> CoC violation.  If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of
> the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is.  Even non-native
> English speakers should be able to determine target and context,
> because that's the essence of meaning.

I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the part
that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so had to
revisit to find the exact paragraph):

"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.

As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.

I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> the responsibility part here means.
> 
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> 
> Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.

Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> > the responsibility part here means.
> > 
> > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> > 
> > Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
> 
> Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
> As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
> be interpreted here.

Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.

Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
single common sense code of conduct?

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:26:05PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
> > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> > > other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> > > the responsibility part here means.
> > > 
> > > I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> > > existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> > > 
> > > Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> > > by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> > > After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
> > 
> > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
> > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
> > be interpreted here.
> 
> Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
> 
> Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to
> single common sense code of conduct?

I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually
should do what value does the former bring?

Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot
of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
[...]
> > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-
> > interpretation.rst? 
> > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things
> > should be interpreted here.
> 
> Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
> 
> Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged
> to single common sense code of conduct?

The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC
reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been
the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months
... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think
we don't want to reopen that can of worms.

James

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:30:45PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> [...]
> > > Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-
> > > interpretation.rst? 
> > > As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things
> > > should be interpreted here.
> > 
> > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents.
> > 
> > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged
> > to single common sense code of conduct?
> 
> The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC
> reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been
> the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months
> ... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think
> we don't want to reopen that can of worms.

Got you... Well I now read the 2nd amendment now through, and yeah, kind
of way I work/function anyway.

Thank you for the patience...

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:12 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
> I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the
> part that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so
> had to revisit to find the exact paragraph):

I replied in to the other thread.

> "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
> temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
> they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
> 
> The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
> necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.
> 
> As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows
> what the responsibility part here means.
> 
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even
> for existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

That's wrong in the light of the interpretation document, yes.

> Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a
> mistake by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it
> *actually* says?

You can't read it in isolation, you need to read it along with the
interpretation document.  The latter was created precisely because
there was a lot of push back on interpretation problems and ambiguities
with the original CoC and it specifically covers this case (and a lot
of others).

James


> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than
> before.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:56:52AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:  
> > > > 
> > > > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.  
> > 
> > I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
> > technical comments? This is all beyond me...  
> 
> Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-)
> 
> I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things that I
> did was to read the new CoC properly.
> 
> This a direct quote from the CoC:
> 
> "Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
> language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
> inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
> advances or requests for sexual favors."
> 
> Doesn't this fall into this category?
>

It has also been discussed that existing code (and past conduct) will
not be covered under the CoC. It's about new code and conduct moving
forward.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> This a direct quote from the CoC:
> 
> "Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading
> language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording,
> inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual
> advances or requests for sexual favors."

...and this is from the interpretation document:

> Contributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language.
> Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be
> addressed now as a violation.

So existing code is explicitly not a CoC violation and need not be
treated as such.  That said, improvements to the comments are always
welcome, as long as they are actually improvements.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 11/30/18 8:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
> changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
> freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out
when a piece of text contains the word "fuck".

I still don't understand why people think that the word "fuck" is what
would keep certain groups from contributing to the Linux kernel. In all
seriousness, it doesn't.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:09:48PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out
> when a piece of text contains the word "fuck".
> 
> I still don't understand why people think that the word "fuck" is what
> would keep certain groups from contributing to the Linux kernel. In all
> seriousness, it doesn't.

Are you making a claim that your personal experience, and maybe your
mates, is the objective truth, or am I misunderstanding something?

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Matthias Brugger]

On 30/11/2018 20:40, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
> "hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
> bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
> follow true Doggo meme style).
> 
> "This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
> hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
> similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
> "Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
> etc... "hug" is odd.
> 

Like John I don't think that the word "fuck" is something we have to ban from
the source code, but I don't care too much. Anyway, please don't change it to
something like heck as it might be difficult for non-english speaker to understand.

Regards,
Matthias

> Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
> changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
> freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?
> 
> -Kees
> 
>>
>> Jarkko Sakkinen (15):
>>   MIPS: replace **** with a hug
>>   Documentation: replace **** with a hug
>>   drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug
>>   m68k: replace **** with a hug
>>   parisc: replace **** with a hug
>>   cpufreq: replace **** with a hug
>>   ide: replace **** with a hug
>>   media: replace **** with a hug
>>   mtd: replace **** with a hug
>>   net/sunhme: replace **** with a hug
>>   scsi: replace **** with a hug
>>   inotify: replace **** with a hug
>>   irq: replace **** with a hug
>>   lib: replace **** with a hug
>>   net: replace **** with a hug
>>
>>  Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst      |  2 +-
>>  arch/m68k/include/asm/sun3ints.h              |  2 +-
>>  arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c                    | 24 +++++++++----------
>>  arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c               |  2 +-
>>  arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c               |  2 +-
>>  drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c                 |  2 +-
>>  .../gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/init.c   |  2 +-
>>  .../nouveau/nvkm/subdev/pmu/fuc/macros.fuc    |  2 +-
>>  drivers/ide/cmd640.c                          |  2 +-
>>  drivers/media/i2c/bt819.c                     |  8 ++++---
>>  drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c                     |  2 +-
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunhme.c             |  4 ++--
>>  drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h                      |  2 +-
>>  fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c              |  2 +-
>>  kernel/irq/timings.c                          |  2 +-
>>  lib/vsprintf.c                                |  2 +-
>>  net/core/skbuff.c                             |  2 +-
>>  17 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.19.1
>>
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:31:13PM +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> Like John I don't think that the word "fuck" is something we have to ban from
> the source code, but I don't care too much. Anyway, please don't change it to
> something like heck as it might be difficult for non-english speaker to understand.

I make context sensitive better thought updates based on the feedback
that Kees gave. I used RFC tag for a reason.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Chris Mason]

On 30 Nov 2018, at 14:40, Kees Cook wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
>
> Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
> "hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
> bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
> follow true Doggo meme style).
>
> "This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
> hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
> similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
> "Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
> etc... "hug" is odd.
>
> Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
> changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
> freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?

I think the bar for changing the documentation/comments should be 
improvement in the clarity or approachability of whatever is being 
changed.

This patch set is kind of like Linus sitting at kernel summit with a 
sign that says "Free Hugs".  Kind of confusing, and really unlikely to 
make anyone involved happier about working on the kernel.

Jarkko, making things clearer and more approachable is absolutely worth 
the time if you're interested, but I think it'll mean larger and more 
individualized changes to these files.

-chris

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:42:23PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote:
> I think the bar for changing the documentation/comments should be 
> improvement in the clarity or approachability of whatever is being 
> changed.
> 
> This patch set is kind of like Linus sitting at kernel summit with a 
> sign that says "Free Hugs".  Kind of confusing, and really unlikely to 
> make anyone involved happier about working on the kernel.
> 
> Jarkko, making things clearer and more approachable is absolutely worth 
> the time if you're interested, but I think it'll mean larger and more 
> individualized changes to these files.

Fully 110% agree.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:40:17AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug.
> 
> Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find
> "hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we
> bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to
> follow true Doggo meme style).
> 
> "This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is
> hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface"
> similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better.
> "Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?"
> etc... "hug" is odd.
> 
> Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific
> changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my
> freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc?

I'm happy to refine this (thus the RFC tag)! And depending on the
culture, hugging could fall in the harrasment category. Actually, when I
think about it, in Finland this kind of poking of ones personal bubble
would be such :-)

I'll refine the patch set with more context sensitive replacements,
perhaps removing the comment altogether in some places. Thank you for
the feedback!

/Jarkko