I meant to add. All of these changes are now pushed to the git repo on kernel.org. On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Salut Nicolas, > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk > <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not >>> patches, but questions: >>> * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch >>> * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch >> >> Hi Nicolas, >> >> It was great how you split out the 0* and 9* series. Thanks. In fact, >> you could have been even more confident with some of the 9* patches, >> since they were (to my eye) unquestionably correct :-). >> >> I have so far processed the following: >> >> 905 applied >> 906 applied >> 908 applied >> 909 rejected (this preposition is okay) >> 910 applied >> 911 edited: in fact what was missing was "to" berfor "POSIX.1-2001". >> 912 applied >> 914 applied >> >> I will get to the rest later. > > I've now processed the following: > > 901 rejected. I think the existing text is okay. > > 902 applied, along with a few other fixes along similar lines. > > 903 applied > > 904 Could you please resubmit this separately, and show the contents > of these two /proc files on your systrem as produced by "od -c"? > (Shell sessions that modified the "allowed" value and showed me before > and after "od -c" would be great!) > > 907 applied > > 913 I think the first part suggested by this patch isn't needed (I > don't see the problem -- but please resubmit with more detail, if you > think I'm being slow ;-).) I applied the second part of the patch > (s/Thursday/Monday/). > > 915 rejected. As far as I know this is simply incorrect. > If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as > separate mail, and supply more explanation. > > 916 rejected. As far as I can see, this isn't correct. The point here > is not that the caller can change the values, but rther, that such > changes will be visible to the caller of the PLT entry, > If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as > separate mail, and supply more explanation. > > 917 applied > > 918 applied. This is a great rewording of the text, doubly so when you > are not a native speaker. > > 919 rejected. Short answer is that I don't know the details here. If > you wanted to research this and send me a patch, I'd be happy to > receive it, but I also can understand that you may not have the time. > > 920 applied, with slight changes to the first block. > > 921 rejected. I need more info on this one. "Numerical value out of > range" is ERANGE. I haven't tried to test this, but reading > kernel/cpuset.c (2.6.31) there is no use of ERANGE, and it looks like > EINVAL is being used by this case. Could I ask you to resubmit this as > a separate patch, with a shell session that fully demonstrates what > you are seeing (please show "uname -a" and all the commands you use to > mount the cpuset file system, and also some information on your > systems node/memory setup.) > > I believe I've now processed all of your patches. (Let me know if you > think I missed one.) Please, do feel free to separately resubmit any > patches that I rejected above, if you think I'm wrong, or can provide > more information. (As things stand, if I hear nothing further on any > of these, I'll forget about them...) > > Thanks again for the great work Nicolas. (By the way, does this mean > that work is progressing on the French translation?) > > Cheers, > > Michael > > -- > Michael Kerrisk > Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ > Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication! > http://blog.man7.org/ > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication! http://blog.man7.org/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
