From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E64C433B4 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28B161221 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231253AbhDYT24 (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:28:56 -0400 Received: from l2mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.75]:60003 "EHLO l2mail1.panix.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230494AbhDYT2z (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:28:55 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 956 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:28:55 EDT Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89]) by l2mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FSyMS2pCCzDkw; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:12:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-yb1-f172.google.com (mail-yb1-f172.google.com [209.85.219.172]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FSyMQ646mzSBL; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:12:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=panix.com; s=panix; t=1619377938; bh=fc/8Z24Q3s7ry5U7i5eSbitrtiEv2nEp2QWukNso8Fk=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=S0FXHKAhUNVvtIs5fxf4gQ+WNFyJSmVvDDnV8vqkSw7apP7Lkxt+ctwtH6VO7ijID D5XiVh4U1npXIj3QZgIggNV3nX8z1bEQlw0X3nKmsAvJxCJoeSzxq1/mpJioaEDPF9 rM77NDYK1rChJlCtq5oSDCoTq6coC44op7TXIEtU= Received: by mail-yb1-f172.google.com with SMTP id t94so8851314ybi.3; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bdmeBTK2CYmSPwY40+/IlQgzcHwSYWJyP4PJZTrRPvycyuh50 qG04F9mN3NiPk0gAPEcMPdJco+5ej/azkVZOew0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycnxXfPvnAKFw8qjAuPfEP8YLOtME9eW25HtgDz3bgNkXBYyEwiEg66nLD8lKmSL8IWhm9Tz9HXbpRgD+UJVk= X-Received: by 2002:a25:4943:: with SMTP id w64mr9475524yba.256.1619377938461; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210423230609.13519-1-alx.manpages@gmail.com> <56932c68-4992-c5e4-819f-a88f60b3f63a@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Zack Weinberg Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 15:12:05 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf.2: Use standard types and attributes To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" , linux-man , GNU C Library , LKML , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , bpf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:52 PM Alexei Starovoitov via Libc-alpha wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 10:56 AM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) > wrote: > > > > Hello Alexei, > > > > On 4/24/21 1:20 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > Nack. > > > The man page should describe the kernel api the way it is in .h file. > > > > Why? > > Because man page must describe the linux uapi headers the way they > are installed in the system and not invent alternative implementations. > The users will include those .h with __u32 and will see them in their code. > Man page saying something else is a dangerous lie. Why do you consider it _dangerous_ for the manpages to replace __u32 with uint32_t, when we know by construction that the two types will always be the same? Alejandro's preference for the types standardized by ISO C seems perfectly reasonable to me for documentation; people reading the documentation can be expected to already know what they mean, unlike the Linux-specifc __[iu]NN types. Also, all else being equal, documentation should avoid use of symbols in the ISO C reserved namespace. If anything I would argue that it is the uapi headers that should be changed, to use the types. zw