[Top] [All Lists]

Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real"

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: network manpages was Re: is UDP_CORK "real"
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:29:39 +0200
Cc: glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, mtk-lkml@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <426833F0.9010803@xxxxxx> <m1u0lty7uh.fsf@xxxxxx> <426F2A1D.10001@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050427122648.GA12597@xxxxxx> <20050427114323.53e43e32.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:43:23AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2005 14:26:48 +0200
> Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > It would be nice of course if David could enforce a policy
> > to require a manpage patch for new ioctls/socket options etc.
> > in the future, then such documentation lag would not happen.
> I could easily do this if the files were in the kernel tree
> itself, but since it's external it's not so easy to do.

Hmm, you could ask them at least to submit a patch.

> Why don't we put them into the kernel tree?  They are just
> small documents and I bet they will stay in sync better if
> they were moved into the kernel tree.

Well, you have to talk to Michael who maintains them now.
I personally think it would be a good idea, yes.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>