[PATCHES] Typos and questions

[PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Nicolas François]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

Hello,

Please find attached a set of patches.
They should have a explicit name, and some have additional info in the
header if needed.

In my opinion, the patches starting with 0 can be applied as is (after a
short review).

The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
patches, but questions:
 * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
 * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch

Please let me know if after a short look some of them should be reported
first to bugzilla.

The patches should apply to current git. The order should not be an issue.

Best Regards,
-- 
Nekral

[-- Attachment #2: patches.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 19716 bytes --]

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Michael Kerrisk]

Salut Nicolas,

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Nicolas François
<nicolas.francois-Fa7rcPG4DJn7nK0/Xc0eeg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find attached a set of patches.
> They should have a explicit name, and some have additional info in the
> header if needed.
>
> In my opinion, the patches starting with 0 can be applied as is (after a
> short review).

Yes. A great set of patches! Thanks! one or two comments below.

> The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
> patches, but questions:
>  * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
>  * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch
>
> Please let me know if after a short look some of them should be reported
> first to bugzilla.

I will cover the 9* patches in a separate reply.

> The patches should apply to current git. The order should not be an issue.

I applied all of the 0* patches except for two.

009:
I see why you wanted to change this, but the change is not correct.
Really, "current processor" is best made into "host system". (The
domain name is a property of the system, not a process.)

018:

The first part of the patch isn't right (but again, I can see why you
wanted to malke a change). "waied for" is a qualify phrase for
"children". Adding a hyphen helps make that clear.

I applied this:

--- a/man2/sigaction.2
+++ b/man2/sigaction.2
@@ -304,10 +304,10 @@ The
 .I si_utime
 and
 .I si_stime
-fields do not include the times used by waited for children (unlike
+fields do not include the times used by waited-for children (unlike
 .BR getrusage (2)
 and
-.BR time (2).
+.BR time (2)).
 In kernels up to 2.6, and since 2.6.27, these fields report
 CPU time in units of
 .IR sysconf(_SC_CLK_TCK) .

Thanks very much for all of these!!

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
http://blog.man7.org/
--
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

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Michael Kerrisk]

> The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
> patches, but questions:
>  * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
>  * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch

Hi Nicolas,

It was great how you split out the 0* and 9* series. Thanks. In fact,
you could have been even more confident with some of the 9* patches,
since they were (to my eye) unquestionably correct :-).

I have so far processed the following:

905 applied
906 applied
908 applied
909 rejected (this preposition is okay)
910 applied
911 edited: in fact what was missing was "to" berfor "POSIX.1-2001".
912 applied
914 applied

I will get to the rest later.

Thanks.

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
http://blog.man7.org/
--
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

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Nicolas François]

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 09:56:34AM +0200, mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org wrote:
> > The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
> > patches, but questions:
> >  * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
> >  * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch
> 
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> It was great how you split out the 0* and 9* series. Thanks. In fact,
> you could have been even more confident with some of the 9* patches,
> since they were (to my eye) unquestionably correct :-).
> 
> I have so far processed the following:
> 
> 905 applied
> 906 applied
> 908 applied
> 909 rejected (this preposition is okay)
> 910 applied
> 911 edited: in fact what was missing was "to" berfor "POSIX.1-2001".
> 912 applied
> 914 applied

Thanks for the reviews and good luck with your book.

-- 
Nekral
--
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

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Michael Kerrisk]

Salut Nicolas,

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk
<mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
>> patches, but questions:
>>  * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
>>  * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> It was great how you split out the 0* and 9* series. Thanks. In fact,
> you could have been even more confident with some of the 9* patches,
> since they were (to my eye) unquestionably correct :-).
>
> I have so far processed the following:
>
> 905 applied
> 906 applied
> 908 applied
> 909 rejected (this preposition is okay)
> 910 applied
> 911 edited: in fact what was missing was "to" berfor "POSIX.1-2001".
> 912 applied
> 914 applied
>
> I will get to the rest later.

I've now processed the following:

901 rejected. I think the existing text is okay.

902 applied, along with a few other fixes along similar lines.

903 applied

904 Could you please resubmit this separately, and show the contents
of these two /proc files on your systrem as produced by "od -c"?
(Shell sessions that modified the "allowed" value and showed me before
and after "od -c" would be great!)

907 applied

913 I think the first part suggested by this patch isn't needed (I
don't see the problem -- but please resubmit with more detail, if you
think I'm being slow ;-).) I applied the second part of the patch
(s/Thursday/Monday/).

915 rejected. As far as I know this is simply incorrect.
If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as
separate mail, and supply more explanation.

916 rejected. As far as I can see, this isn't correct. The point here
is not that the caller can change the values, but rther, that such
changes will be visible to the caller of the PLT entry,
If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as
separate mail, and supply more explanation.

917 applied

918 applied. This is a great rewording of the text, doubly so when you
are not a native speaker.

919 rejected. Short answer is that I don't know the details here. If
you wanted to research this and send me a patch, I'd be happy to
receive it, but I also can understand that you may not have the time.

920 applied, with slight changes to the first block.

921 rejected. I need more info on this one. "Numerical value out of
range" is ERANGE. I haven't tried to test this, but reading
kernel/cpuset.c (2.6.31) there is no use of ERANGE, and it looks like
EINVAL is being used by this case. Could I ask you to resubmit this as
a separate patch, with a shell session that fully demonstrates what
you are seeing (please show "uname -a" and all the commands you use to
mount the cpuset file system, and also some information on your
systems node/memory setup.)

I believe I've now processed all of your patches. (Let me know if you
think I missed one.) Please, do feel free to separately resubmit any
patches that I rejected above, if you think I'm wrong, or can provide
more information. (As things stand, if I hear nothing further on any
of these, I'll forget about them...)

Thanks again for the great work Nicolas. (By the way, does this mean
that work is progressing on the French translation?)

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
http://blog.man7.org/
--
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

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Michael Kerrisk]

I meant to add. All of these changes are now pushed to the git repo on
kernel.org.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Michael Kerrisk
<mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Salut Nicolas,
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk
> <mtk.manpages-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> The patches starting with a 9 need to be reviewed. Some of them are not
>>> patches, but questions:
>>>  * 904-tcp.7-list_separator.patch
>>>  * 919_cpuset.7-question.patch
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> It was great how you split out the 0* and 9* series. Thanks. In fact,
>> you could have been even more confident with some of the 9* patches,
>> since they were (to my eye) unquestionably correct :-).
>>
>> I have so far processed the following:
>>
>> 905 applied
>> 906 applied
>> 908 applied
>> 909 rejected (this preposition is okay)
>> 910 applied
>> 911 edited: in fact what was missing was "to" berfor "POSIX.1-2001".
>> 912 applied
>> 914 applied
>>
>> I will get to the rest later.
>
> I've now processed the following:
>
> 901 rejected. I think the existing text is okay.
>
> 902 applied, along with a few other fixes along similar lines.
>
> 903 applied
>
> 904 Could you please resubmit this separately, and show the contents
> of these two /proc files on your systrem as produced by "od -c"?
> (Shell sessions that modified the "allowed" value and showed me before
> and after "od -c" would be great!)
>
> 907 applied
>
> 913 I think the first part suggested by this patch isn't needed (I
> don't see the problem -- but please resubmit with more detail, if you
> think I'm being slow ;-).) I applied the second part of the patch
> (s/Thursday/Monday/).
>
> 915 rejected. As far as I know this is simply incorrect.
> If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as
> separate mail, and supply more explanation.
>
> 916 rejected. As far as I can see, this isn't correct. The point here
> is not that the caller can change the values, but rther, that such
> changes will be visible to the caller of the PLT entry,
> If you think otherwise, could I ask you to resubmit this patch as
> separate mail, and supply more explanation.
>
> 917 applied
>
> 918 applied. This is a great rewording of the text, doubly so when you
> are not a native speaker.
>
> 919 rejected. Short answer is that I don't know the details here. If
> you wanted to research this and send me a patch, I'd be happy to
> receive it, but I also can understand that you may not have the time.
>
> 920 applied, with slight changes to the first block.
>
> 921 rejected. I need more info on this one. "Numerical value out of
> range" is ERANGE. I haven't tried to test this, but reading
> kernel/cpuset.c (2.6.31) there is no use of ERANGE, and it looks like
> EINVAL is being used by this case. Could I ask you to resubmit this as
> a separate patch, with a shell session that fully demonstrates what
> you are seeing (please show "uname -a" and all the commands you use to
> mount the cpuset file system, and also some information on your
> systems node/memory setup.)
>
> I believe I've now processed all of your patches. (Let me know if you
> think I missed one.) Please, do feel free to separately resubmit any
> patches that I rejected above, if you think I'm wrong, or can provide
> more information. (As things stand, if I hear nothing further on any
> of these, I'll forget about them...)
>
> Thanks again for the great work Nicolas. (By the way, does this mean
> that work is progressing on the French translation?)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Kerrisk
> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
> Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
> http://blog.man7.org/
>



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
http://blog.man7.org/
--
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

Re: [PATCHES] Typos and questions

[Michael Kerrisk]

> Thanks for the reviews and good luck with your book.

I forgot to say: Thanks!

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Watch my Linux system programming book progress to publication!
http://blog.man7.org/
--
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