Re: [PATCH v3] Many pages: Document fixed-width types with ISO C naming

[Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3139 bytes --]

Alexei,


On 8/24/22 20:55, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
 > Link: 
<https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/20210423230609.13519-1-alx.manpages@gmail.com/T/>
 > Link: <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YZvIlz7J6vOEY+Xu@yuki/T/>
 > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
 > Nacked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
 > Nacked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
 > Nacked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
 > Acked-by: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>



On 8/25/22 00:40, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:04 PM Alejandro Colomar
> <alx.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/man2/bpf.2 b/man2/bpf.2
>> index d05b73ec2..84d1b62e5 100644
>> --- a/man2/bpf.2
>> +++ b/man2/bpf.2

[...]

>>
>>       struct {    /* Used by BPF_PROG_LOAD */
>> -        __u32         prog_type;
>> -        __u32         insn_cnt;
>> +        uint32_t      prog_type;
>> +        uint32_t      insn_cnt;
> 
> For the N-th time:
> Nacked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
> 
> Please stop sending this patch.

Sorry, but no.

First, this has only been v3, and v1 was a year and a half ago, don't 
make it like I'm constantly making you lose your precious time, because 
I'm actively trying not to.

Second, I already made a big notice that you and a few more have 
strongly opposed to the patch, respectfully keeping all of your NAKs in 
my patch, as you can see above.

I gave very detailed reasons of why this patch is reasonable and, back 
in the days of v1, Zack (from glibc) gave even better reasons of why the 
manual pages should document ISO C (libc) types, and not kernel ones, 
and why it shouldn't matter to user-space programmers.

But from your side what do we have?  Just direct NAKs without much 
explanation.  The only one who gave some explanation was Greg, and he 
vaguely pointed to Linus's comments about it in the past, with no 
precise pointer to it.  I investigated a lot before v2, and could not 
find anything strong enough to recommend using kernel types in user 
space, so I pushed v2, and the discussion was kept.

I would like that if you still oppose to the patch, at least were able 
to provide some facts to this discussion.

But the most fundamental thing that I ask is that you respect me.

With this attitude, the only thing you're going to get is that I apply 
the patch right after, because:

1) The patch is right.  Go talk to glibc and gcc maintainers, who know 
how types work by heart if you have doubts.

2) I'm the maintainer of this project, and under doubts, it's my decission.

I'm trying to be nice, and ask for review to make sure I'm not making 
some big mistake by accident, and I get disrespect?  No thanks.


Patch applied.


Now, if someone with a bit more respect still thinks this change is 
incorrect, and is wanting to share some facts to show me my mistake, 
I'll happily review it and revert the patch if necessary.  For now, the 
patch is applied.


Alex


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages maintainer
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]