In some email I received from a luser, sie wrote
> On Wed, 2001-10-03 at 14:10, Darren Reed wrote:
> > 
> > Comments on the the following change for pipe(2) ?
> 
> Bill already took care of this.  `Go away.'

The person who said that should just have not said anything.
There are a million and one other ways you could have said
that without being such a rude ass like that.

That said, I do not think that the current incarnation is clear enough.
It reads:

...
ERRORS
...
     [EFAULT]      The fildes buffer is in an invalid area of the process's
                   address space.  The reliable detection of this error cannot
                   be guaranteed and when not detected may result in the gen-
                   eration of a signal, indicating an address violation, which
                   is sent to the process.

I still feel this is wrong because the emphasis on the detection is wrong.
I'd go so far as to say that if we cannot reliably detect this type of error
then that should be classed as a bug :-)

Darren