Re: [PATCH 04/14] prctl.2: srcfix add comments for navigation

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:36PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On 5/13/20 1:15 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:03:27PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> On 5/13/20 12:56 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>>> Hi Dave,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/12/20 6:36 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>>>> The prctl.2 source is unnecessarily hard to navigate, not least
> >>>>> because prctl option flags are traditionally named PR_* and so look
> >>>>> just like prctl names.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For each actual prctl, add a comment of the form
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	.\" prctl PR_FOO
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to make it move obvious where each top-level prctl starts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course, we could add some clever macros, but let's not confuse
> >>>>> dumb parsers.
> >>>>
> >>>> A patch like this, which makes sweeping changes across the page,
> >>>> should be best placed at the end of a series, I think.
> >>>> The reason is that if I fail to apply this patch (and I am a
> >>>> little dubious about it), then probably the rest of the patches
> >>>> in the series won't apply. (Furthermore, it also forced me to
> >>>> apply patch 02 already, which I wanted to reflect on a little.)
> >>>
> >>> Agreed, I'll try to do that in future.
> >>>
> >>>> That said, I'll apply it, so that the remaining patches
> >>>> apply cleanly. I'll consider later whether to keep this
> >>>> change. For example, I wonder if a visually distinctive 
> >>>> source line that is always the same would be better than
> >>>> these comments that repeat the PR_* names. For example, 
> >>>> something like
> >>>>
> >>>> .\" ==========================
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll circle back to this later.
> >>>
> >>> I'd prefer to keep the name if we can, since navigating by search is
> >>> otherwise bothersome due to false hits.
> >>>
> >>> Could we do both, say:
> >>>
> >>> .\" === PR_FOO ===
> >>
> >> Okay -- I'll give that some thought.
> >>
> >>> If you prefer to reject this patch, I'm happy to rebase and repost the
> >>> series as appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, this one is nice to have rather than essential.
> >>
> >> For now, the patch is already committed and pushed.
> > 
> > OK, thanks.  I'm happy to write a further patch when you've decided what
> > to do, if it saves you work.
> 
> Let's leave this for the moment. Once the dust settles on your 
> remaining patches, I'll try to remember to circle back on this.

OK, give me a should if you need anything from me.

Cheers
---Dave