Hey Mickaël! On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:17:30PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 03:44:44PM +0000, Günther Noack wrote: > > * Fix some whitespace, punctuation and minor grammar > > * Add a missing sentence about the minimum ABI version, > > to stay in line with the section next to it > > > > Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tahera Fahimi <fahimitahera@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tanya Agarwal <tanyaagarwal25699@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Looks good, thanks! > > I'm going to take this patch in my tree with the changes explained > below. You can send a v2 with the second patch according to the reviews. > > As a side note, applying the patch series from this thread with b4 > doesn't work because they apply to different repositories. > > Dealing with duplicated doc in two repositories is not practical and > adds work to everyone... Could we move the non-libc syscall man pages > to the kernel repository? Let me suggest the opposite: Could we move the kernel docs to manual pages in man9? (As is the historic place for kernel docs.) (You could keep man9 in the kernel tree if you want, or could handle it to the Linux man-pages project, if you want.) That would help have a more clear separation between the two sets of documentation, and prevent duplication. I personally don't like the idea of having man2 in the kernel tree. Michael Kerrisk already mentioned several reasons for why it's a bad idea in the past. On top of them, I'd add that the build system of the Linux man-pages project is quite more powerful than the kernel one, and it would be an important regression to have to adapt to the kernel Makefiles in the manual pages. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
