Re: [PATCH] include/hw/xen: Use more inclusive language in comment

[Jan Beulich]

On 09.11.2023 18:40, Thomas Huth wrote:
> --- a/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h
> +++ b/include/hw/xen/interface/hvm/params.h
> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@
>   * Note that 'mixed' mode has not been evaluated for safety from a
>   * security perspective.  Before using this mode in a
>   * security-critical environment, each subop should be evaluated for
> - * safety, with unsafe subops blacklisted in XSM.
> + * safety, with unsafe subops blocked in XSM.

To avoid another round trip when you send the patch against xen.git, as
already asked for by others, I'd like to point out that the wording
change isn't describing things sufficiently similarly: "blocked" reads
as if XSM would do so all by itself, whereas "blacklisted" has an
indication that something needs to be done for XSM to behave in the
intended way. Minimally I'd suggest "suitably blocked via", but perhaps
yet better wording can be thought of.

Jan

PS: Personally I'm against such avoiding of certain words. Them being
misused is not really a justification. New wording (perhaps not
specifically here, but considering the underlying wider theme) is going
to be misused as well, leading to the need to come up with yet different
wording, and so on.