This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes?
- From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Peng Haitao <penght at cn dot fujitsu dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, "linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-man at vger dot kernel dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:35:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54A2C8A6 dot 9050100 at redhat dot com> <54A302A1 dot 3020706 at gmail dot com> <54A30624 dot 7070207 at redhat dot com>
On 12/30/2014 09:08 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 12/30/2014 02:53 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> You better turn on the spell checker in your mailer (or update
>> its dictionary) ;-). ("Ree_n_tran*")
>
> Spell checker? :-)
>
>>> * Add some introductory text about reetrancy in the safety
>>> section. This text will discuss that AS-safe functions
>>> are reetrant because they must be to be AS-safe. Note that
>>> reetrant functions need not be AS-safe nor MT-safe.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>>> * Add a "R-Safe" and "R-Unsafe" to indicate safety with respect
>>> to reetrancy.
>>
>> Sounds odd to me. Why not just say "Reentrant" and "Nonreentrant",
>> rather than add new terms?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> The only down side is that both of those words are quite long.
<nod>
> This makes the safety notes visually long.
>
> Any thoughts on a short form?
Well, I'd say at least keep it to a recognizable abbreviation.
("Reent", "Nonreent"?)
>>> * Immediately annotate all AS-safe functions as R-Safe.
>>
>> Okay -- modulo preceding point
>>
>>> * Review all of the "_r" functions for reetrance safety.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> My review of other Unices indicates this is probably the
>>> last type of safety that documented by other systems.
>>
>> I am not quite clear what you mean by "last...documented".
>> Do you mean: few other systems document it?
>
> I mean to imply that I hope we need not add any other safety
> notations aside from thread safety, signal safety, cancellation
> safety, and reentrancy. I have not seen any other notes in other
> Unices with the exception of fork1-safe in Solaris. Have you
> seen any other kinds of notes we might prepare to need in the
> future?
Okay -- gotcha now. No, I think those four are the main one to
worry about.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/