>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 21:21, Doug Hogan wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:51:17AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote: >>> That is misleading in the M_CANFAIL case. >>> >>> I'm not terribly good at wording things, but I suggest something >>> more like this instead: >> >> Hmm I think it's only misleading in the M_CANFAIL case. I think this >> diff makes it a little more complex than it needs to be. What do you >> think about leaving the malloc option section as-is and instead >> explain how mallocarray() operates before it calls malloc()? >> >> Something along these lines: "mallocarray(9) is a wrapper around >> malloc(9) that checks for overflow. If arithmetic overflow is detected, >> it returns NULL when M_CANFAIL is enabled or else calls panic(). >> Otherwise, it has the same behavior as malloc." >> >> Does that work? > >This is a kernel interface. I think some expectation of "read the >source" is not unwarranted. The man page should tell you what it does >and why you want it, but I'm not convinced all internal behaviors need >be documented. That's my view, anyway.
Handholding can go only so far. Beyond that, the manual page stops being concise.
