Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

fts: Further improve the manual page
ClosedPublic

Authored by des on Mon, Oct 6, 9:25 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F131404179: D52925.diff
Tue, Oct 7, 4:21 PM
F131404108: D52925.diff
Tue, Oct 7, 4:19 PM
F131389104: D52925.id163683.diff
Tue, Oct 7, 12:36 PM
F131384849: D52925.id163683.diff
Tue, Oct 7, 11:40 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Oct 6, 7:49 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Oct 6, 4:57 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Oct 6, 2:33 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Oct 6, 2:29 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary
  • Add subsections for the three functions that didn't already have one.
  • Add a RETURN VALUES section.
  • Improve the grammar somewhat.
  • Clarify that fts_read() will not set errno to 0 if called again after having already returned NULL.

Sponsored by: Klara, Inc.

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 67603
Build 64486: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

des requested review of this revision.Mon, Oct 6, 9:25 AM
bcr added a subscriber: bcr.

Looks good to me, thanks for the additions to the man page.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, Oct 6, 10:59 AM
markj added inline comments.
lib/libc/gen/fts.3
549

Should this also be The .Fa compar argument points to...?

637

Reading the whole section, this detail is kind of confusing. What exactly is supposed to happen if you call fts_read() again after it returned NULL? For an end-of-stream condition I guess it'll just return NULL again, but what happens if an error "unrelated to a file in the hierarchy" occurs? It's not very clear to me what that means... is it referring to memory allocation failure?

866

The fts_read ssection distinguishes between different types of errors (related to a returned file vs. unrelated), whereas here we do not, so this seems inconsistent, or I am missing something.

des marked 3 inline comments as done.

rf

This revision now requires review to proceed.Tue, Oct 7, 9:13 AM
lib/libc/gen/fts.3
637

Yes it's unclear and also incorrect, I misremembered.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Tue, Oct 7, 1:52 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.