Re: [PATCH v4] fanotify: Document FAN_REPORT_PIDFD Feature

[Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>]

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 03:40:47PM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 03:12:33PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hi Matthew,
> > 
> > On 4/20/22 00:43, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > > Update the fanotify API documentation to include details on the new
> > > FAN_REPORT_PIDFD feature. This patch also includes a generic section
> > > describing the concept of information records which are supported by
> > > the fanotify API.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > 
> > > * Applied style and grammatical suggestions by Alejandro Colomar
> > >    [0]. This includes the use of Oxford-style commas and semantic
> > >    newlines.
> > 
> > I've further edited the patch a bit (only whitespace) regarding semantic
> > newlines.  I'll send it as a reply to this patch in a moment.
> > 
> > Apart from that, I couldn't understand a paragraph.  See below.
> > > +This is a process file descriptor that refers to the process
> > > +responsible for generating the event.
> > > +The returned process file descriptor is no different from one which
> > > +could be obtained manually if
> > > +.BR pidfd_open (2)
> > > +were to be called on
> > > +.IR fanotify_event_metadata.pid .
> > 
> > 
> > > +In the instance that an error is encountered during pidfd creation for
> > > +one of two possible error types represented by a negative integer
> > > +value may be returned in this
> > > +.I pidfd
> > > +field.
> > 
> > I couldn't understand the paragraph above.  Could you maybe rephrase it a
> > bit?  Maybe add some commas?
> 
> I had a read through it and if we drop "for" from that sentence and
> add a comma after "creation", then I think this sentence reads
> perfectly fine. Having said that, is it necessarsy for me to resend
> version 6 (with your semantic newline modifications in addition to
> this minor rephrase), or are you OK with just amending these changes
> when applying the patch?

v6 has been posted [0], which incorporates this change. PTAL.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/83b96ea91e5da1bdc092b34ab92bd5d1db4dbee0.1653371709.git.repnop@google.com/T/#u

/M