On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 03:12:33PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On 4/20/22 00:43, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > Update the fanotify API documentation to include details on the new > > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD feature. This patch also includes a generic section > > describing the concept of information records which are supported by > > the fanotify API. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > * Applied style and grammatical suggestions by Alejandro Colomar > > [0]. This includes the use of Oxford-style commas and semantic > > newlines. > > I've further edited the patch a bit (only whitespace) regarding semantic > newlines. I'll send it as a reply to this patch in a moment. > > Apart from that, I couldn't understand a paragraph. See below. > > +This is a process file descriptor that refers to the process > > +responsible for generating the event. > > +The returned process file descriptor is no different from one which > > +could be obtained manually if > > +.BR pidfd_open (2) > > +were to be called on > > +.IR fanotify_event_metadata.pid . > > > > +In the instance that an error is encountered during pidfd creation for > > +one of two possible error types represented by a negative integer > > +value may be returned in this > > +.I pidfd > > +field. > > I couldn't understand the paragraph above. Could you maybe rephrase it a > bit? Maybe add some commas? I had a read through it and if we drop "for" from that sentence and add a comma after "creation", then I think this sentence reads perfectly fine. Having said that, is it necessarsy for me to resend version 6 (with your semantic newline modifications in addition to this minor rephrase), or are you OK with just amending these changes when applying the patch? /M
