| Message ID | 1593020162-9365-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | prctl.2 man page updates for Linux 5.6 | expand |
Hi Dave, On 6/24/20 7:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > A bunch of updates to the prctl(2) man page to fill in missing > prctls (mostly) up to Linux 5.6 (along with a few other tweaks and > fixes). > > Patches from the v2 series [1] that have been applied or rejected > already have been dropped. > > All that remain here now are the SVE and tagged address ABI controls > for arm64. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/1590614258-24728-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com/ > > > Dave Martin (2): > prctl.2: Add SVE prctls (arm64) > prctl.2: Add tagged address ABI control prctls (arm64) > > man2/prctl.2 | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 331 insertions(+) Thanks. I've pushed these changes to master now. Cheers, Michael
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 6/24/20 7:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > A bunch of updates to the prctl(2) man page to fill in missing > > prctls (mostly) up to Linux 5.6 (along with a few other tweaks and > > fixes). > > > > Patches from the v2 series [1] that have been applied or rejected > > already have been dropped. > > > > All that remain here now are the SVE and tagged address ABI controls > > for arm64. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/1590614258-24728-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com/ > > > > > > Dave Martin (2): > > prctl.2: Add SVE prctls (arm64) > > prctl.2: Add tagged address ABI control prctls (arm64) > > > > man2/prctl.2 | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 331 insertions(+) > Thanks. I've pushed these changes to master now. Thanks -- btw I finally got around to reviewing master, and noted a few editorial changes that man-pages(7) does not make any statement about: "arg1, arg2, and arg3" Do you strictly prefer the command before "and" here? Conventionally, the final comma would typically be omitted in prose, except where the list members are complex enough that the command is required to assist parsing. However, lists of formal arguments are not quite vanilla prose. "Providing that" -> "Provided that" Any particular rationale here? "error EFOO" -> "the error EFOO" Is this a rule, in general? .IP \(bu 2 I assumed that specifying an explicit indentation amount would be fragile. Going with the default behaviour also tends to result in a more consistent appearance. Do you have any recommandations in this area? Do you have rules about the order to use bullet symbols? I tend to avoid \(bu if possible, since while it's "correct", nroff can render it nastily as an unadorned letter "o" (e.g., with -Tascii or LC_CTYPE=C). This is particlarly annoying if the indent is <= 2, since then the "o" tends to be visually swallowed by the following text (i.e., to a casual glance it looks like a word, particlarly if the following text is not capitalised). Perhaps this is a bad glyph substitution decision in nroff rather than something that should be fixed in the man-pages source, but the man-pages source may be easier to fix... There is already inconsistency here: there are may top-level lists using ".IP *" in prctl.2, and plenty of places where the default indentation is used. Should any of these be written up in man-pages(7), or is there a checker than can detect them? I wan't to minimise the amount of tweaking you have to do when merging patches. Cheers ---Dave
Hello Dave, TL;DR: don't worry about the small stuff; I'm happy to do the minor edits given the high quality of your patches. On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:52, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > On 6/24/20 7:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > > A bunch of updates to the prctl(2) man page to fill in missing > > > prctls (mostly) up to Linux 5.6 (along with a few other tweaks and > > > fixes). > > > > > > Patches from the v2 series [1] that have been applied or rejected > > > already have been dropped. > > > > > > All that remain here now are the SVE and tagged address ABI controls > > > for arm64. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/1590614258-24728-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com/ > > > > > > > > > Dave Martin (2): > > > prctl.2: Add SVE prctls (arm64) > > > prctl.2: Add tagged address ABI control prctls (arm64) > > > > > > man2/prctl.2 | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 331 insertions(+) > > Thanks. I've pushed these changes to master now. > > Thanks -- btw I finally got around to reviewing master, and noted a few > editorial changes that man-pages(7) does not make any statement about: > > "arg1, arg2, and arg3" > > Do you strictly prefer the command before "and" here? > > Conventionally, the final comma would typically be omitted in > prose, except where the list members are complex enough that the > command is required to assist parsing. However, lists of formal > arguments are not quite vanilla prose. There are two camps wrt that comma. I prefer the so-called Oxford comma convention, as shown above. man-pages uses it generally. > "Providing that" -> "Provided that" > > Any particular rationale here? Either would be fine; the past tense is just slightly better, to my ear. > "error EFOO" -> "the error EFOO" > > Is this a rule, in general? I think the change that you refer to was actually: "with EFOO" to "with the error EFOO". The former is just a little too brief, to my ear. > .IP \(bu 2 > > I assumed that specifying an explicit indentation amount would > be fragile. Going with the default behaviour also tends to > result in a more consistent appearance. Do you have any > recommandations in this area? > > Do you have rules about the order to use bullet symbols? I tend > to avoid \(bu if possible, since while it's "correct", nroff can > render it nastily as an unadorned letter "o" (e.g., with -Tascii > or LC_CTYPE=C). This is particlarly annoying if the indent is > <= 2, since then the "o" tends to be visually swallowed by the > following text (i.e., to a casual glance it looks like a word, > particlarly if the following text is not capitalised). Perhaps > this is a bad glyph substitution decision in nroff rather than > something that should be fixed in the man-pages source, but the > man-pages source may be easier to fix... > > There is already inconsistency here: there are may top-level > lists using ".IP *" in prctl.2, and plenty of places where the > default indentation is used. I must admit that I'm in the process of rethinking bulleted lists, and I have not come to a conclusion (and that's why nothing is said in man-pages(7), and also why there is currently inconsistency). Using .IP with the default indent (8n) results in a very deep indent between the glyph and the text, so it's not my preference. Your note about the poor rendering with "-Tascii" is interesting. Perhaps ".IP \(bu 3" may be better. But, I really do not know: do people really render with "-Tascii" these days? > Should any of these be written up in man-pages(7), or is there a checker > than can detect them? Perhaps man-pages should say something about the Oxford comma. > I wan't to minimise the amount of tweaking you have to do when merging > patches. If every patch that I received was of the same quality as yours are, my life would be much easier. The tweaks are minimal work on my part. Don't worry. Just send me more patches :-). Cheers, Michael
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:31:16PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello Dave, > > TL;DR: don't worry about the small stuff; I'm happy to do the minor > edits given the high quality of your patches. > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:52, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:52:24PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > On 6/24/20 7:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > A bunch of updates to the prctl(2) man page to fill in missing > > > > prctls (mostly) up to Linux 5.6 (along with a few other tweaks and > > > > fixes). > > > > > > > > Patches from the v2 series [1] that have been applied or rejected > > > > already have been dropped. > > > > > > > > All that remain here now are the SVE and tagged address ABI controls > > > > for arm64. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/1590614258-24728-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Martin (2): > > > > prctl.2: Add SVE prctls (arm64) > > > > prctl.2: Add tagged address ABI control prctls (arm64) > > > > > > > > man2/prctl.2 | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 331 insertions(+) > > > Thanks. I've pushed these changes to master now. > > > > Thanks -- btw I finally got around to reviewing master, and noted a few > > editorial changes that man-pages(7) does not make any statement about: > > > > "arg1, arg2, and arg3" > > > > Do you strictly prefer the command before "and" here? > > > > Conventionally, the final comma would typically be omitted in > > prose, except where the list members are complex enough that the > > command is required to assist parsing. However, lists of formal > > arguments are not quite vanilla prose. > > There are two camps wrt that comma. I prefer the so-called Oxford > comma convention, as shown above. man-pages uses it generally. > > > "Providing that" -> "Provided that" > > > > Any particular rationale here? > > Either would be fine; the past tense is just slightly better, to my ear. > > > "error EFOO" -> "the error EFOO" > > > > Is this a rule, in general? > > I think the change that you refer to was actually: "with EFOO" to > "with the error EFOO". The former is just a little too brief, to my > ear. > > > .IP \(bu 2 > > > > I assumed that specifying an explicit indentation amount would > > be fragile. Going with the default behaviour also tends to > > result in a more consistent appearance. Do you have any > > recommandations in this area? > > > > Do you have rules about the order to use bullet symbols? I tend > > to avoid \(bu if possible, since while it's "correct", nroff can > > render it nastily as an unadorned letter "o" (e.g., with -Tascii > > or LC_CTYPE=C). This is particlarly annoying if the indent is > > <= 2, since then the "o" tends to be visually swallowed by the > > following text (i.e., to a casual glance it looks like a word, > > particlarly if the following text is not capitalised). Perhaps > > this is a bad glyph substitution decision in nroff rather than > > something that should be fixed in the man-pages source, but the > > man-pages source may be easier to fix... > > > > There is already inconsistency here: there are may top-level > > lists using ".IP *" in prctl.2, and plenty of places where the > > default indentation is used. > > I must admit that I'm in the process of rethinking bulleted lists, and > I have not come to a conclusion (and that's why nothing is said in > man-pages(7), and also why there is currently inconsistency). > > Using .IP with the default indent (8n) results in a very deep indent > between the glyph and the text, so it's not my preference. Is it worth trying to change the default indent in the macro package, or will that just upset other people? > Your note about the poor rendering with "-Tascii" is interesting. > Perhaps ".IP \(bu 3" may be better. But, I really do not know: do > people really render with "-Tascii" these days? Probably not, though it may happen depending on the locale and/or terminal type settings in minimal distro installs. It's a minor annoyance at worst, and probably not worth fixing... > > Should any of these be written up in man-pages(7), or is there a checker > > than can detect them? > > Perhaps man-pages should say something about the Oxford comma. Fair enough. > > I wan't to minimise the amount of tweaking you have to do when merging > > patches. > > If every patch that I received was of the same quality as yours are, > my life would be much easier. The tweaks are minimal work on my part. > Don't worry. Just send me more patches :-). OK, I won't agonise too much over this, then. Cheers ---Dave
> > > There is already inconsistency here: there are may top-level > > > lists using ".IP *" in prctl.2, and plenty of places where the > > > default indentation is used. > > > > I must admit that I'm in the process of rethinking bulleted lists, and > > I have not come to a conclusion (and that's why nothing is said in > > man-pages(7), and also why there is currently inconsistency). > > > > Using .IP with the default indent (8n) results in a very deep indent > > between the glyph and the text, so it's not my preference. > > Is it worth trying to change the default indent in the macro package, or > will that just upset other people? I imagine it would break other stuff. Thanks, Michael