From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.cock.li (mail.cock.li [37.120.193.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0024F4C8C68 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.193.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789672282; cv=none; b=CmzqIAEPVhWul0QTTLvv+YFqQVV6JHdqjnAfeEoSA7wy7+DnfaGZrAqXcwSZQeS+/wW0nNh3fr4gAguxXvGTidSuhqEFXhRZ6ah5wUjNAh7go2nWMsICCsdiZ5zCO6mLj+iUZD1cDaokJxayG+qaPKTR98+OOiUcF5q32O6KyNA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789672282; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sJb1J5ijTFV0S2Eap6vgcfobhB7cueDaJhLstemFM1U=; h=Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Subject:From:Mime-Version: References:In-Reply-To; b=oGRwabQBStIGKiZAAJ1/ADdX6nxD2qWYQQYExI/t5VZ60wLnGNm7tZoXupkMzX54SsTMtLLnII6P9kFNtoFmhJeF876gHi0S4dDOk2V1Xk2dJXj9lpBx65AwoWsk7hX706YhaFgjC93Y6x/vTKUk0HOj1Unz4qrERsY32AN+sr4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=memeware.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=memeware.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=memeware.net header.i=@memeware.net header.b=SeZ8IXhL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.193.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=memeware.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=memeware.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=memeware.net header.i=@memeware.net header.b="SeZ8IXhL" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=memeware.net; s=mail; t=1789672277; bh=sJb1J5ijTFV0S2Eap6vgcfobhB7cueDaJhLstemFM1U=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=SeZ8IXhLPhdqodq5cUx0XXI7pDBAE623muxxT0Zqtj4bCe+Tujkx0lGh2U6cPhtzD 1KIbq6mFAgtixzI8nLCy/kKgglomtbwx2Ve8sp2AYhJDgjeuvemFVK4Qzk2dbygwEo ENls8+/W6EsEMk/EoCCYtYbDhok8PboGp/pKphId0iloesPuApSVDfP1IvxSKodWXy 1p18jSdLldryARyNXB09fQhHLda1RDULCZkmrzXrzg1PAjh6pFnFebx6jZ4a6ZBKQz WDoEiwFathhuJnhc2FLPsG79nK1bxlIv2R8uV+bG2EyCdHCPxLjf1a0/bWd4P5nQJO SG0wmbpJPbiRg== Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 19:11:03 +0000 Message-Id: To: "Alejandro Colomar" Cc: "linux-man" , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] man/man2/ioperm.2: wfix From: "astian" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20260917062039.1365378-2-astian@memeware.net> In-Reply-To: On 17 Sep 2026 13:59 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: [...] >> diff --git a/man/man2/ioperm.2 b/man/man2/ioperm.2 >> index e4a058164f6f..9b9aaf3840e2 100644 >> --- a/man/man2/ioperm.2 >> +++ b/man/man2/ioperm.2 >> @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ >> .\" >> .TH ioperm 2 (date) "Linux man-pages (unreleased)" >> .SH NAME >> -ioperm \- set port input/output permissions >> +ioperm \- set input/output port permissions > > If I'm understanding this proposal correctly, the fix is because I/O > is an adjective of port, not of permissions. And then 'I/O port' would > be modifying permissions. > > If my interpretation is correct, then I believe I/O would be separated > from 'port' by a hyphen, not a space. > > Is this the correct interpretation of the proposed fix? > > BTW, should we contract to I/O? > > ioperm \- set I/O-port permissions Yes, grepping around I see all other pages use "I/O port", except for proc_ioports(5) which contains "Input-Output port" in the body (and "I/O port" in the title). Leaving the hyphen out, per Robinson's explanation.