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=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 B1D34C433E0 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D6020663 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="a30Zm0xl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730084AbgGGPdr (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:33:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34192 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728651AbgGGPdp (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:33:45 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC4EC061755 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=u+eV/Vt9JPFkjgSC7N8EDNEv2OCJ2IDe/eB3wX/AnBs=; b=a30Zm0xlb5E85J1xhQac/tdmK8 ZayXBB0v3stbD0fr8xoc1BLj3H3+1MHN+NYM2D9uVn6b2aKpWG8/dnu/YUJqif1+D3Oa085AyhfWa e133Q3MgF+Jas8moPItUFjdDZ9UUFA2gKIvhTmqgbVyPzHZu4B4+UqWUIOJJLpkgl4pJJgPFhIE8U h/6HI/jgPiiaJC2KQxV18tB9DgkC5OfaP3zh0Zt+lyvPzsMS1tA31zYXKjvWlbtIZpuJqG948a6LU natX/r8SiI/6kpCuc6Pfxs2hex6s/+zufLDJuE6eEHRdCG7VA0d/MEcX6l42quUbaVdrqN4JfIqDy KXpwncZA==; Received: from [2601:1c0:6280:3f0:897c:6038:c71d:ecac] by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jspbF-0005Iy-Pw; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 15:33:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology To: "Bird, Tim" , Steven Rostedt , Mike Rapoport Cc: Chris Mason , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , LKML , ksummit References: <159389297140.2210796.13590142254668787525.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <202007062234.A90F922DF@keescook> <20200707064921.GA9411@linux.ibm.com> <20200707093727.22aa39e2@oasis.local.home> From: Randy Dunlap Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/7/20 8:24 AM, Bird, Tim wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Rostedt >> >> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300 >> Mike Rapoport wrote: >> >>>> But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive >>>> even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar >>>> checker. ;) >>> >>> How about yeslist and nolist? ;-) >> >> I was thinking good-list / bad-list. >> >> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately... > > I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described > the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words, > yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context > what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental > model of what the code is going to do. That matches what I was about to say: Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about. It should be more descriptive, like allow/block. -- ~Randy