I think this is good to land now and we can do further improvements in the later phases.

Submit my current review drafts, I have to change computer this weekend and I believe I can finish (and accept) this weekend.

Please also check bug 278011 with the maintainer. Thanks!

It would be good if the patch can contain more context for the lines before/after, by using arc tool or see https://wiki.freebsd.org/Phabricator#Create_a_Revision_via_Web_Interface

In D44257#1010727, @mizhka wrote:

@lwhsu , now all tests are passed, portlint & portclippy are happy. If no objectives, I would like to commit it

Don't forget to update .Dd when content of manual page changed. :-)

Initial version has been submitted by Teodor Sigaev (maintainer of cad/PrusaSlicer).

Just be curious, should this be directly submitted to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ ?

Oh yes thanks for reminding, this is indeed the better solution.

In D44010#1004129, @jamie wrote:

I'll admit very little familiarity with the testing framework. If there's a standard to show a test as skipped that doesn't indicate a problem, that sounds best. But if it just claims that it's passed, it would seem better to just not run it. Though both is probably a good idea: still have it pass (like if the test was built at another time), but don't build it on a jail-less system.

I don't really object this approach, but I don't really support it either. Do you think it's okay to let the test case check if jail utility exists, and skip running if no?