Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 17:44 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec  2, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >> >> I think I have a precise definition.  Can you back up your claim by
> >> >> giving a concrete situation in which you believe the definition fails
> >> >> to capture some notion of safety?
> 
> >> Note the “concrete”.  What I'm looking for is something like “one thread
> >> calls this function specified as MT-Safe while another thread calls this
> >> other function also specified as MT-Safe, but I can't tell what the
> >> expectations are WRT their behavior: it could be X, Y, or Z, and it
> >> ought to be specified”
> 
> > (1) Initially, flockfile(file1) and flockfile(file2) both happened
> > before the following:
> 
> > (2) A coherency example:
> 
> > (3) Another example:
> 
> Thanks a lot!  These all have enlightened me as to points about which
> you seek more clarity in the definition.
> 
> I'd love to follow up on them, but since it would take me quite some
> time to collect and locate all of the passages of POSIX that would
> support my reasoning and conclusions, I consulted with mgmt about
> prioritizing this over completing the code review and adding safety
> notes to the remaining ~200 functions in the manual.
> 
> Since the schedule was already somewhat tight to make 2.19 before this
> week's worth of discussions, we decided I should complete the review
> first.

[...]

> That's the jist of it.  Please let me know if you'd like me to follow up
> with the entire argument when I'm done with the higher-priority work.
> 

Yes, let's follow up after this round of documentation is complete.
Thanks!