So what is an optional alignment? Is that like, "make sure it begins and ends on an address which is a multiple of $1" or something else?

should we coordinate with bz? i thought he removed all the wifi firmware from base and spent several release cycles building that out so it works well enough.

okay i am testing this now and nothing exploded. or well i thought i was but

$ sysctl dev.intel_pmc
sysctl: unknown oid 'dev.intel_pmc'

let me build all this stuff again sorry.

LGTM from manpages

Can we MFC this? Relnotes?

In D32297#1383171, @wosch wrote:

so, after this patch mandoc output will look like groff? Fine by me.

+ provide more hyperlinks
+ editorial nits

(Add the missing mentioned)

"this quarter in the Documentation project"

+ add toolchain updates, thanks @vladlen!
+ rephrase mandoc portability work to try to be more concise

+ s/Russian Translation team/Vladlen and Andrey. it's just them, right? so they should deserve specific credit.
+ Add mandoc. upstream is doing the first release in 5 years, we are reconciling with upstream for portability.

Is this still relevant? Can we action or garbage collect this revision?

Is this still relevant? Can we close or merge this?

Is this still relevant? Can we close or merge this?

This looks dead so I am garbage collecting it. Please re-open this if you think this is an error.

I've been working with upstream in preparation for mandoc 1.15. They are saying no new standard abbreviation macros, they cause portability problems and it is just fine to type out the text. I'm planning to revert the unique ones we have to increase portability, such as fixing rendering on man.freebsd.org which uses groff. Will you close this to clean up the queue?

In D60237#1382379, @emaste wrote:

It's the "Bay Area FreeBSD Vendor Summit"

We could probably use a .Sh ENVIRONMENT at some point.

Some of this is stuff that we would normally keep on the wiki, I really like them being here in the tree instead. I think it's easier to see and maintain atomically.

Thank you!

Awesome! Thank you!

Actually, everything seems reasonable. I just have one suggestion to try to make this functionality more obvious?

Ok team, what do you want me to do? We can keep iterating on this (although this is the extent of my understanding) or I can merge this.

This is really wonderful Minsoo, thank you so much for doing this.

That's all from manpages mechanical side of things. But I do not really know about syscalls to review the content.

I'm beginning to think all these Li's in the manpage are actually Fa "Function argument or parameter".

Can you also update release(7) with the new knobs?

Oh one more thing,

In D60002#1376597, @mchoo wrote:

Remove kern.sched.preemption (This is shared between 4BSD and ULE, so it should be in scheduler.4)

Dropped in favor of D59938

OK thanks @glebius!

Thank you!

The link in the test plan seems out of date?

(I may not be following, please excuse me if my assessment is incorrect)
Please stop this.
If you don't know what is going on in the patch, and cannot explain it, and use many words, also the patch is large, it is not useful and hurts.