Hi William, I'm taking the patchset. However I'll apply some small changes :
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 08:08:10PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote: > in global config parsing, we currently expect to have a possible no > keyword (KWN_NO), but we never allow it in config parsing. > another patch could have been to simply remove the code handling a > possible KWN_NO. > take this opportunity to update documentation of set-dumpable. > also make all strcmp conditions look the same in "no" parsing. Actually I really hate the strcmp() tests, and I've started to purposely add "== 0" or "!= 0" to them a few years ago because too often I got confused when quickly reading some of them (if you have a bug in one of them and are convinced it's right, you can be sure you'll miss it). Even if I know pretty well how they work, I systematically have to make the mental effort of inverting the result when reading them. So for new code I'm encouraging the use of the "<", "==", ">", "!=" operators with them (it's even mentioned in the coding style doc). Thus I'll drop this change if you don't mind. > --- a/doc/configuration.txt > +++ b/doc/configuration.txt > @@ -1141,7 +1141,9 @@ setenv <name> <value> > > set-dumpable > This option is better left disabled by default and enabled only upon a > - developer's request. It has no impact on performance nor stability but will > + developer's request. If it has been enabled, it may still be forcibly > + disabled by prefixing it with the "no" keyword. It has no impact on > + performance nor stability but will > try hard to re-enable core dumps that were possibly disabled by file size > limitations (ulimit -f), core size limitations (ulimit -c), or > "dumpability" > of a process after changing its UID/GID (such as /proc/sys/fs/suid_dumpable OK but please be careful to keep paragraphs justified to improve readability. The rule of thumb is simple and matches what you have in any book: for a line to be shorter than normal, it must be the last one of a paragraph (in which case it's followed by an empty line). Thanks! Willy
