On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 5/12/20 6:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > The prctl.2 source is unnecessarily hard to navigate, not least > > because prctl option flags are traditionally named PR_* and so look > > just like prctl names. > > > > For each actual prctl, add a comment of the form > > > > .\" prctl PR_FOO > > > > to make it move obvious where each top-level prctl starts. > > > > Of course, we could add some clever macros, but let's not confuse > > dumb parsers. > > A patch like this, which makes sweeping changes across the page, > should be best placed at the end of a series, I think. > The reason is that if I fail to apply this patch (and I am a > little dubious about it), then probably the rest of the patches > in the series won't apply. (Furthermore, it also forced me to > apply patch 02 already, which I wanted to reflect on a little.) Agreed, I'll try to do that in future. > That said, I'll apply it, so that the remaining patches > apply cleanly. I'll consider later whether to keep this > change. For example, I wonder if a visually distinctive > source line that is always the same would be better than > these comments that repeat the PR_* names. For example, > something like > > .\" ========================== > > I'll circle back to this later. I'd prefer to keep the name if we can, since navigating by search is otherwise bothersome due to false hits. Could we do both, say: .\" === PR_FOO === If you prefer to reject this patch, I'm happy to rebase and repost the series as appropriate. In any case, this one is nice to have rather than essential. Cheers ---Dave
