On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 5/13/20 1:15 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:03:27PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> Hi Dave, > >> > >> On 5/13/20 12:56 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > >>> 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 === > >> > >> Okay -- I'll give that some thought. > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> For now, the patch is already committed and pushed. > > > > OK, thanks. I'm happy to write a further patch when you've decided what > > to do, if it saves you work. > > Let's leave this for the moment. Once the dust settles on your > remaining patches, I'll try to remember to circle back on this. OK, give me a should if you need anything from me. Cheers ---Dave
