Re: [PATCH] prctl.2: Fix typo

Alejandro Colomar
2023-10-31T16:11:52Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2306 bytes --]

Hi Stefan,

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:31:58PM +0200, Stefan Puiu wrote:
> Hi Alex and Bruno,
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 4:06 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bruno,
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 09:51:55PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > > The synopsis of the prctl.2 page has:
> > >
> > > int prctl(int option, ...
> > >
> > > This makes no sense, because
> > > - the first argument is not optional; it is mandatory.
> > > - the title of the page is "operations on a process or thread".
> > >
> > > It is thus clear that the first argument indicates the operation to perform.
> > >
> > > Find attached the correction.
> >
> > Agree. I've seen there are other similarly incorrect uses of the word
> > "option" where "operation" should have been used in the same page (but
> > there are some that are correctly used). Would you mind checking the
> > entire page for those other replacements?
>
> Hmm, 'option' is not the same as 'optional'. I guess the first

Yes, I don't think it means optional, but rather a choice from all the
available operations. However, "operation" would be a more precise
name.

> parameter can be seen as an 'option' passed to prctl() along with some
> other parameters, right?
>
> Also, there are multiple occurrences of 'option' in the page (e.g.
> 'This option is mainly intended...'), so only changing the argument
> name would introduce an inconsistency in the page. The argument is

Yes, I think we should also update those when they refer to the first
argument, that is, the operation that prctl(2) will perform.

> also called '__option' in glibc headers on my system (in
> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/prctl.h):
>
> /* Control process execution. */
> #ifndef __USE_TIME_BITS64
> extern int prctl (int __option, ...) __THROW;
> #else
> # ifdef __REDIRECT
> extern int __REDIRECT_NTH (prctl, (int __option, ...), __prctl_time64);

I've CCed glibc in case they want to rename it too.

>
> So, I would say I'm not sure this improves things.

I think a consistent use of operation instead of option would improve
things. We just need to make sure it's consistent.

Cheers,
Alex

>
> Just my 2 cents,
> Stefan.

--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>