From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/4] Document hwpoison signal extensions Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:33:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20100613103343.GE31464@basil.fritz.box> References: <20100320429.026463287@firstfloor.org> <20100320152928.0FA17B19E8@basil.firstfloor.org> <20100611083134.GF6864@basil.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > +Signal siginfo_t fields > +SIGKILL si_pid, si_uid > +SIGCHLD si_pid, si_uid, si_status, si_utime, si_stime > +SIGILL si_code, si_addr, si_trapno > +SIGFPE si_code, si_addr, si_trapno > +SIGSEGV si_code, si_addr, si_trapno > +SIGBUS si_code, si_addr, si_trapno, si_addr_lsb > +SIGTRAP si_code, si_addr, si_trapno > +SIGPOLL si_band, si_fd > +realtime signals > 32 si_pid, si_uid, si_value > +posix timer si_tid, si_overrun, si_sigval > > * It duplicates info that can be found in sigaction(2). The latest version is better, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't like that when I submitted the pages. > > * It's incomplete. If you compare against the corresponding > information in sigaction(2) [better pull the latest page from git for > this comparison], there is more information about which fields are set > by the various signals. Also, various siginfo_t fields (si_signo) are > missing from your table. Ok it could be listed. > > * It's misleading. For example, it implies that some signals set > si_code while others don't. But, AFAIK, all signals set this field. The point was for which signals these fields contain useful information. Maybe that could be clarified in a introductionary sentence though. > Likewise, it suggests that there is useful info in si_trapno, but > usually there is not. The entry for SIGKILL also seems strange. There is useful information in trapno for the signals where I listed it. Why is SIGKILL strange? > > It would help if you could explain what the problem was that you were > trying to solve with this patch, and explain why sigaction(2) doesn't > solve the problem. My problem was that i had to look this up in the source code because I couldn't find it in the manpages. And there was no clear place to put the fields for my hwpoison extensions. Also even if there's a bit redundancy I don't understand why that is a problem? imho the goal should be for individual pages be useful without having to cross reference all the time. -Andi -- ak-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html