You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Subject [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
From Dan Williams <>
Date Sat, 04 Jul 2020 13:02:51 -0700
share
Recent events have prompted a Linux position statement on inclusive
terminology. Given that Linux maintains a coding-style and its own
idiomatic set of terminology here is a proposal to answer the call to
replace non-inclusive terminology.
Cc: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Kees Cook
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 2657a55c6f12..4b15ab671089 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -319,6 +319,18 @@ If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome. See chapter 6 (Functions).
+For symbol names, avoid introducing new usage of the words 'slave' and
+'blacklist'. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary',
+'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or
+'performer'. Recommended replacements for blacklist are: 'blocklist' or
+'denylist'.
+
+Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI, or
+when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol
+specification that mandates those terms. For new specifications consider
+translating specification usage of the terminology to the kernel coding
+standard where possible. See :ref:process/inclusive-terminology.rst + for details.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Subject [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
From Dan Williams <>
Date Sat, 04 Jul 2020 13:02:51 -0700
share
Recent events have prompted a Linux position statement on inclusive
terminology. Given that Linux maintains a coding-style and its own
idiomatic set of terminology here is a proposal to answer the call to
replace non-inclusive terminology.
Cc: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Kees Cook
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 12 ++++
Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++
Documentation/process/index.rst | 1
3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/process/inclusive-terminology.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 2657a55c6f12..4b15ab671089 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -319,6 +319,18 @@ If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome. See chapter 6 (Functions).
+For symbol names, avoid introducing new usage of the words 'slave' and
+'blacklist'. Recommended replacements for 'slave' are: 'secondary',
+'subordinate', 'replica', 'responder', 'follower', 'proxy', or
+'performer'. Recommended replacements for blacklist are: 'blocklist' or
+'denylist'.
+
+Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI, or
+when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol
+specification that mandates those terms. For new specifications consider
+translating specification usage of the terminology to the kernel coding
+standard where possible. See :ref:
process/inclusive-terminology.rst +
for details.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: