On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:46:20PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:19:13AM -0400, William Orr wrote: > > > This documents the error code when passing multiple cmsg structs. Let me > > > know if the wording needs to be improved. > > > > > > Index: lib/libc/sys/send.2 > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/sys/send.2,v > > > retrieving revision 1.31 > > > diff -u -p -r1.31 send.2 > > > --- lib/libc/sys/send.2 9 Sep 2014 06:32:37 -0000 1.31 > > > +++ lib/libc/sys/send.2 16 Apr 2015 12:48:32 -0000 > > > @@ -223,6 +223,17 @@ values in the > > > .Fa msg_iov > > > array overflowed an > > > .Em ssize_t . > > > +.It Bq Er EINVAL > > > +The socket > > > +.Fa s > > > +is a > > > +.Xr unix 4 > > > +socket, and > > > +.Em controlmsg > > > +is an invalid size or multiple > > > +.Em controlmsg > > > +structures were passed as part of > > > +.Fa msg . > > > .It Bq Er EMSGSIZE > > > The > > > .Fa msg_iovlen > > > > > > > anyone want to take this? it's fine by me, if someone can verify its > > accuracy. > > It seems we cannot exhaustively document the scenarios that lead to > certain errnos being returned (in particular, EAGAIN and EINVAL). > > Overdocumentation leads to reader fatigue; reader fatigue leads to > the documentation being ignored. > > I think it is clearly understood that controlmsg layout is complex, > and there are many illegal layouts, even non-portable ones at that. > This is a complex space, under-documented perhaps? In any case all > those details are missing from this manual page. So it seems > completely wrong to document just this one narrow detail. > > So I don't think the proposed diff improves the manual page. >
fine, i'll drop it. jmc
