From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Schiffer Subject: Re: clone(2) should be clone(3) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:12:52 +0200 Message-ID: <516EBBF4.30405@redhat.com> References: <515EF542.8090200@redhat.com> <51645912.5080602@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-man List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hi Michael, Revised man page looks great! Thanks. peter On 04/16/2013 07:27 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Peter Schiffer wrote: >> Hello Michael, >> >> >> On 04/07/2013 12:15 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Peter Schiffer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Michael, >>>> >>>> it looks like the clone(2) man page is describing glibc implementation >>>> and not the system call. So I guess it should be moved to the section 3 >>>> and a new man page for clone(2) syscall should be created in section 2. >>>> >>>> The clone(2) syscall is defined like this: >>>> >>>> SYSCALL_DEFINE5(clone, unsigned long, clone_flags, unsigned long, newsp, >>>> int __user *, parent_tidptr, >>>> int __user *, child_tidptr, >>>> int, tls_val) >>>> >>>> (I'm sorry, but I don't have a patch this time.) >>> >>> >>> The general tendency is to document all system calls in section 2, and >>> if there are some differences caused by wrapper functions, then they >>> are noted on the page. >>> >>> I admint that clone(2) is an unusual case. The signature given at the >>> top of the page is for the wrapper (and later the difference to the >>> syscall raw interface are described). However, the details are >>> primarily about the underlying kernel interface, so I'm inclined to >>> leave the page where it is. >>> >> >> Ah, I see now. So, basically there are 2 problems: >> * it's not clear that in the synopsis is library call >> * system call is buried down in the page >> >> Would it be viable to somehow have both signatures in the synopsis? > > Yes; done. > >> (I've checked some random man pages in section 2, but didn't find >> anything similar..) > > Like I said, the clone(2) page is a bit different from most ;-). > >> My aim here is, that when I'm opening man page in section 2, the first >> thing I'm expecting to see is syscall signature. In clone(2), it's not >> even clear that this is a library call. > > > Fair enough. > > You can find the revised page in the upstream Git. > > Thanks, > > Michael > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html