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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 9B8E1C04EB8 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A43020863 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:48:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5A43020863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=davemloft.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726769AbeLAI6w (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 03:58:52 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:60570 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726142AbeLAI6w (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 03:58:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:601:9f80:35cd::bf5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E21A14F245CB; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:48:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:48:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20181130.134808.1785785556132211918.davem@davemloft.net> To: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com Cc: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, dave@stgolabs.net, keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, dja@axtens.net, linux@dominikbrodowski.net, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, edumazet@google.com, federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it, geert+renesas@glider.be, deller@gmx.de, corbet@lwn.net, kumba@gentoo.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, pabeni@redhat.com, paul.burton@mips.com, pmladek@suse.com, robh@kernel.org, sean.wang@mediatek.com, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, shannon.nelson@oracle.com, sbrivio@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, me@tobin.cc, makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, willemb@google.com, yhs@fb.com, yanjun.zhu@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com> References: <20181130205521.GA21006@linux.intel.com> <1543611662.3031.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181130214405.GG23772@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:48:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org From: Jarkko Sakkinen 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.