On 12/10/20 1:24 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > A few more comments below. > > Michael, please have a look at them too. > > Christian, do you have any program that you used to test the syscall > that could be added as an example program to the page? > > Thanks, > > Alex > > On 12/9/20 11:00 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote: >> This documents close_range(2) based on information in >> 278a5fbaed89dacd04e9d052f4594ffd0e0585de and >> 60997c3d45d9a67daf01c56d805ae4fec37e0bd8. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Kitt <steve@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> V2: unsigned int to match the kernel declarations >> groff and grammar tweaks >> CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE unshares *and* closes >> Explain that EMFILE and ENOMEM can occur with C_R_U >> "Conforming to" phrasing >> Detailed explanation of CLOSE_RANGE_UNSHARE >> Reading /proc isn't common >> >> man2/close_range.2 | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 138 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 man2/close_range.2 >> >> diff --git a/man2/close_range.2 b/man2/close_range.2 >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000..403142b33 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/man2/close_range.2 [...] >> +.SH USE CASES > > This section is unconventional. Please move that text to one of the > traditional sections. I think DESCRIPTION would be the best place for this. Actually, I'd just drop this SH line, and keep the subsections where they are in NOTES. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
