Re: [PATCH v4] fanotify: Document FAN_REPORT_PIDFD Feature

[Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@google.com>]

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?

/M