Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 6/8] docs: documentation about static shared memory regions

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Julien Grall writes ("Re: [PATCH v8 6/8] docs: documentation about static 
shared memory regions"):
> On 10/30/18 6:58 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > I completely agree with you here, and getting rid of the master/slave
> > terminology would be nice, in retrospect, it was not a good choice. But
> > this is v8 of the series, and as discussed a few times, we encourage
> > reviewers to avoid this kind of requests at this stage.

Sorry I'm late to the party.

> While I agree that the design document has been accepted in Aug 2017,
> the last things we want is adding more potentially offensive naming in 
> Xen. It should not take too much to do the renaming (I am happy to help 
> here).

Thanks for your support.  I am also happy to help.  I don't mind
whether this is done by the equivalent of filter-branch on the patch
series, or with a followup patch to rename everything.  I can
construct the followup patch if that would be welcome.

But we need to know what the new terminology should be.  Is `owner'
and `borrower' a good pairing ?  `Borrow' is perhaps not quite right
because it implies that the original owner no longer has it while it's
borrowed.  OTOH Rust has read-only borrows which work similarly so
borrowing in a way that doesn't exclude the original has at least some
precedent...

I see that the Linux DT document doesn't need to mention the role, so
we just need to fix the Xen tree.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel