Hi, наб!
On 12/4/21 00:46, наб wrote:
But this would be a simpler commit if we only had one definition.
I was going to suggest it originally, but held up because, well,
before writing this patchset I didn't even know about
system_data_types.7, and it seemed that most other declarations are
in-line (which is sensible, I think, and in line with the common
use-case).
Do you agree in changing the whole patch set in that (IMO simpler) way?
I mean, IMO in-line is better to use, but a struct this short and
relatively confusing when you actually unroll the types
makes sense to be banished.
So, just so we're clear on the direction of this before I re-write
a lot of these sections, do these (cherry-picking a few):
clock_getres.2:
The res and tp arguments are timespec(3) structures, as specified in
<time.h>.
mq_receive.3:
This value is an absolute timeout in seconds and nanoseconds since
the Epoch, 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC),
specified in struct timespec(3).
I think I slighly prefer "in a timespec(3) structure" (the main two
reasons are: consistency with existing pages, and also compatibility
with a possible future change that I have in mind[1] of the link from
timespec(3) to timespec-struct(3), which would read better as
timespec-struct(3) structure rather than struct timespec-struct(3)), as
in the previous example. However, I only slightly prefer that and don't
really care that much, and will leave the final decision up to you.
[1]
<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/20211102181454.280919-4-alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx/>
pthread_tryjoin_np.3:
If the timeout expires before thread terminates, the call returns an
error. The abstime argument is a struct timespec(3), specifying an
absolute time measured since the Epoch (see time(2)).
+ adding timespec(3) to the SEE ALSO sexions
Sound about right?
Yes, they sound great!
Cheers,
Alex
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
