Re: [PATCH] mctp.7: Add man page for Linux MCTP support

[Jeremy Kerr <jk@codeconstruct.com.au>]

Hi Alex,

> Thanks for the manual page!

And thanks for the review! In general, I've updated to suit your
comments, just a couple of queries inline.

> > +.SH SYNOPSIS
> > +.nf
> > +.B #include <sys/socket.h>
> > +.B #include <linux/mctp.h>
> > +.PP
> > +.B mctp_socket = socket(AF_MCTP, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
> 
> mctp_socket is a variable name.  See socket.7 for an example.
> It should be in italics.

This was based on udp.7; want me to send a patch for that too?

> > +Packets between a local and remote endpoint are identified by the
> > source
> > +and destination EIDs, plus a three-bit tag value.
> > +.PP
> > +Addressing data is passed in socket system calls through
> > +.B struct sockaddr\_mctp
> 
> That escape is unnecessary.  Did you see it in another page perhaps?

I thought I'd seen some odd line-breaks at the underscore, but can't
replicate that now. Will remove.

> > +typedef uint8_t        mctp_eid_t;
> > +
> > +struct mctp_addr {
> > +    mctp_eid_t         s_addr;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct sockaddr_mctp {
> > +    unsigned short int smctp_family;  /* = AF_MCTP */
> 
> We only use 'int' in 'unsigned int', as the kernel does (or attempts
> to do).  checkpatch.pl warns about 'unsigned short int', IIRC.

No, there are no warnings from checkpatch there; that's just copied from
the current kernel header.

However, I have just sent a separate patch to change that to
__kernel_sa_family_t. Should I use that here (keeping this an exact
match of the kernel header), or stick to the more familiar unsigned
short?

Cheers,


Jeremy