Agree it looks like it slipped through the net. Not sure on the why/how, I will investigate that in my own time, but the right thing to do is to abandon the proposal.

In D57741#1340395, @imp wrote:

I hope that wasn't my local comment which isn't POSIX, but is widely implemented since it does provide more safety than globals.

In D57741#1339112, @bnovkov wrote:

Why was this review closed? The issue wasn't resolved in the meantime and I see no reason not to land this.

Noted. Thanks @glebius

Thanks for the review. Fair point. Revised diff and summary accordingly.

Missed an extra move of an -a and -o item into CAVEATS

Change in line with reviewer comments.

In D57892#1327334, @ziaee wrote:

Aligning with the standards outlined in mdoc(7)

Thank you both for your comments. I will modify in-line with your suggestions.

Restored localand added respective shellcheck disable=SC3043.
Updated commit summary re: shellcheck disable=SC3028

In D57871#1327028, @imp wrote:

Selecting a random one of theses reports...
Could you create parent / child relationships between all these requests? It will make it easier to work with and integrate if you do. Thanks!

N.B. I think Phabricator truncated the diff here. This is what I pasted into the box:

If you scroll down, you have a field with text "Add Action". If you click on it, there should be an option "Abandon Revision".

Thank you for _Static_assert(nitems(ip_ctlprotox) - 1 == (typeof(((struct ip *)NULL)->ip_p))-1, "size of ip_ctlprotox[] doesn't match all IP protocols");

Thank you to the reviewers for pointing this out.

Thanks for the review. Having read through the code again with a fresh pair of eyes, you are of course correct. Every day is an opportunity for learning as the old saying goes.

Corrected version.

Ignore that last diff (2). My bad. Updated version coming shortly.

Per reviewer recommendation

Thanks for the review.