Re: [PATCH man-pages 2/4] madvise.2: document reliable probe for advice support

["Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:04 AM Alejandro Colomar
<alx.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Zach!
>
> On 10/18/22 19:53, Zach O'Keefe wrote:
> > Hey Alex,
> >
> >>> diff --git a/man2/madvise.2 b/man2/madvise.2
> >>> index e14e0f7fb..adfe24c24 100644
> >>> --- a/man2/madvise.2
> >>> +++ b/man2/madvise.2
> >>> @@ -789,6 +789,13 @@ that are not mapped, the Linux version of
> >>>    ignores them and applies the call to the rest (but returns
> >>>    .B ENOMEM
> >>>    from the system call, as it should).
> >>> +.PP
> >>> +.BR madvise (0,
> >>> +0,
> >>> +.IR advice )
> >>
> >> For expressions, we don't follow the same highlighting rules as in
> >> identifiers and man-page references.  Instead we use all italics.  See
> >> man-pages(7):
> >>
> >>          Expressions, if not written on a separate indented  line,
> >>          should  be  specified in italics.  Again, the use of non‐
> >>          breaking spaces may be appropriate if the  expression  is
> >>          inlined with normal text.
> >
> > Just to confirm, by "expression", you mean "madvise(0, 0, advice)"?
>
> Yes, I meant that.
>
> > If
> > so, to be consistent with the other note, perhaps best to break this
> > into a phrase such as:
> >
> > --8<---
> > .BR madvise ()
> > called with zero for both
> > .IR addr
> > and
> > .IR length
> > will return zero iff
> > .I advice
> > is supported by the kernel and can be relied on to probe for support.
> > --8<---
>
> I think the C expression was more readable.

SGTM - will update for v2.  Appreciate your help here!

Best,
Zach