Re: Documenting MT-safe vs. MT-unsafe.

[Peng Haitao <penght-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]

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.
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html