Hi Alex, On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 16:25, Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2020-10-27 14:47, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > On 10/27/20 11:23 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> On 2020-10-07 08:53, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >>> On 10/6/20 12:12 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Hi Alex, > >>> > >>> Thanks, patch applied. And I trimmed the "See also" a little. > >>> I'd hold off on documenting loff_t and off64_t for the > >>> moment. As you note in another mail, the *lseek* man page > >>> situation is a bit of a mess. I'm not yet sure what to do. > >> > >> > >> I saw a TODO in the page about loff_t. > >> Just wanted to ping you in case you forgot about it (I did). > > > > I didn't forget it exactly. I just don't know that I have the > > inclination to do anything about the messy *llseek* pages. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > I've been reading them to add loff_t and off64_t to sys_data_types. > Now that I've read them (not too deep), > I think that lseek64(3) is good enough, > and maybe we should look for small details > missing there but present on the others, > and merge those to lseek64.3. > And then keep links in the other pages pointing to lseek64.3. > > Any thoughts? Those pages have a long history, and I confess to not understanding all of the details of the history. Looking more closely at the pages, I think they are good enough. Let's leave them alone. (I did apply one patch just now.) Thinking about it further, I don't think it's necessary to document loff_t in system_data_types(7). No APIs in the current glibc headers even use loff_t, as far as I can see. I'm not sure that 'off64_t' really needs documenting there either. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
