This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Documenting MT-safe vs. MT-unsafe.
- From: Peng Haitao <penght at cn dot fujitsu dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:13:52 +0800
- Subject: Re: Documenting MT-safe vs. MT-unsafe.
- References: <51F08029 dot 1000403 at redhat dot com>
On 07/25/2013 09:32 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> At present I am a little worried that glibc is going
> to document what we want to be true e.g. MT-unsafe,
> but that the linux kernel man pages project is going
> to document what is actually implemented e.g. MT-safe.
> This may lead users to believe functions are safe
> when they are not guaranteed to be so.
>
> The other problem is that the two documents might
> diverge and this information is very important.
>
> What can we do to keep the two documents in sync?
>
At present, when make the patch, I will look up Alex's result
(branch lxoliva/thread-safety-docs).
If thread-safety level is the same with Alex or POSIX,
I will send the patch. otherwise, the patch will be put off.
> When Alex completes his project we'll have MT-safety
> data (with a series of exceptions) for almost all
> of the glibc functions. Could we use that data to
> drive the generation of the attributes in the
> linux kernel man pages?
>
Maybe this will wait for a long time:(
--
Best Regards,
Peng
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>