From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real" Date: 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20050429152939.GB38331@muc.de> References: <426833F0.9010803@hp.com> <426F2A1D.10001@aarnet.edu.au> <20050427122648.GA12597@muc.de> <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: glen.turner@aarnet.edu.au, netdev@oss.sgi.com, mtk-lkml@gmx.net Return-path: Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200 To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On 27 Apr 2005 14:26:48 +0200 > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > It would be nice of course if David could enforce a policy > > to require a manpage patch for new ioctls/socket options etc. > > in the future, then such documentation lag would not happen. > > I could easily do this if the files were in the kernel tree > itself, but since it's external it's not so easy to do. Hmm, you could ask them at least to submit a patch. > > Why don't we put them into the kernel tree? They are just > small documents and I bet they will stay in sync better if > they were moved into the kernel tree. Well, you have to talk to Michael who maintains them now. I personally think it would be a good idea, yes. -Andi