Re: [PATCH 05/14] prctl.2: tfix listing order of prctls

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:31:32PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On 5/13/20 1:21 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:10:53PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> On 5/12/20 6:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>> The prctl list has historically been sorted by prctl name (ignoring
> >>> any SET_ or GET_ prefix) to make individual prctls easier to find.
> >>> Some noise seems to have crept in since.
> >>>
> >>> Sort the list back into order.  Similarly, reorder the list of
> >>> prctls specified to return non-zero values on success.
> >>
> >> This is a good patch. But see my comments on patch 04.
> >> I'd prefer a patch like this at the end of a series, 
> >> rather than in the middle of it.
> > 
> > Ack.
> > 
> > Ideally we could check the order with a script, but that seemed a step
> > too far.
> 
> Quite.
> 
> > What's the view on having parts of the man pages generated, rather then
> > being distributed ready-built?
> 
> I'm not keen (until someone shows me compelling benefits). Splitting
> things up would make pages harder to edit, and IMO increase
> the chance for inconsistencies in pages.

Fair enough.  I might experiment with something, but I won't expect an
easy sell!

This sort of thing was part of my motivation for having a distinctive
marker for the start of each prctl entry.

> 
> > If we split prctl.2 up with a fragment per prctl, we could paste the
> > fragments together in the right order with a script.
> > 
> >>
> >>> Content movement only.  No semantic change.
> >>
> >> And explicitly noting that detail is very helpful to me.
> > 
> > Unless of course I'm lying ;)  (I'm not, but I won't be offended if you
> > check.)
> 
> Actually, with your first two patches, you impressed right out of
> the gate, so my "I'm gonna blindly trust this guy" needle already
> switched up pretty high :-).

I guess I'll need to be careful...

Cheers
---Dave