Re: Revised signalfd man-page

["Michael Kerrisk" <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>]

> Von: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[...]
> > .\" FIXME Davide, what does the following mean?  How (in userspace
> > .\" terms) does a sighand structure become orphaned?
> > The
> > .BR read (2)
> > call can also return 0,
> > in case the sighand structure to which the signalfd was attached,
> > has been orphaned.
> 
> You can remove the five lines above, in virtue of the fact that Linus 
> merged my simplification patch.

Okay.

[...]
> > .\" FIXME Davide, a question: why rename these fields to be
> > .\" different from their siginfo_t counterparts?  At the very least,
> > .\" it would have been nicer to use the same names with prefixes
> > .\" such as (say) "fdsi_" (thus, e.g., fdsi_signo); that would have
> > .\" made grepping both kernel and userland source code easier
> > .\" (e.g, to find instances of "si_signo" in a siginfo_t or a
> > .\" signalfd_siginfo structure), and also would have avoided
> > .\" weirdnesses like trimming "errno" down to err.
> > .\"
> 
> That is fine for me. I'd like ssi_* (for Signalfd SigInfo). Ok?

Yes, equally good.  Would you write a patch for this, and 
CC me please?

Thanks,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 

Want to help with man page maintenance?  
Grab the latest tarball at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages , 
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source 
files for 'FIXME'.