I like it, lets give it a few days to see if anyone else has any suggestions to improve it further.

In D58702#1346997, @des wrote:

In D58702#1346970, @wollman wrote:

I think the bit added to the manual page should be in a DIAGNOSTICS section, if you believe mdoc(7).

I copied it from cp(1). Other manual pages including dd(1) and wc(1) have the same verbiage in roughly the same location.

What would be helpful is a Fixes: commit message trailer so we knew how far back this needs to MFC and when.

Yep, this is what it says in sys/net/route.h. Thanks for pinging me!

Done! I've put everything together in one revision and marked this one as abandoned.

Request (if they're available) some colleagues who I regard highly w/rt MPERF/APERF MSR expertise.

Thanks for bringing this back here! Just found two little typos, and then the manual looks good to me!

In D58390#1345816, @markj wrote:

In D58390#1345632, @emaste wrote:

@ziaee Yes I think this should be noted in UPDATING.

RELNOTES would be more appropriate. UPDATING is for users tracking main.

Siloing off docs is a classic mistake that results in poor docs. I would greatly prefer if you abandoned this revision and put them back together. Thank you for your consideration.

Resubmit as patch 1/3: hwpmc driver changes only

Why did you spin this off into it's own revision? I left feedback on your previous review, which was the appropriate place for it, and none of it is addressed here.

This manual looks gorgeous. The structure and narrative flow is really just delightful.

This is all I can find so far, but I didn't test it yet.

Should we put something in UPDATING?

The manual looks great to me. Please use Relnotes: yes since this is a new driver, and tag me when this is ready to test on Alder Lake!

There is also a standard section defined for this purpose, .Sh SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.