Re: Futex manpages out of date

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:13 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> The futex man-pages (2,7) from version 3.15-1 and at least a few earlier
> >> versions are considerably out of date with respect to the current
> >> implementation. They don't document newer op codes, such as:
> >>
> >> FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET
> >> FUTEX_WAKE_BITSET
> >> FUTEX_WAKE_OP
> >> FUTEX_LOCK_PI
> >> FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
> >> FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI
> >> FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI
> >>
> >> These new wait op codes now use absolute timeouts, while the original
> >> FUTEX_WAIT uses a relative timeout. Lastly, and most importantly, glibc
> >> has removed the futex() wrapper to syscall(SYS_futex, ...). With that in
> >> mind, would people prefer that we simply remove the futex man-pages
> >> (2,7)?
> > 
> > A readable text about the interaction between the futex value and the
> > various futex ops and how to build proper locking primitives with them
> > would be helpful I think, however doing that in the form of a locking
> > library (as has been suggested at KS) seems plenty fine to me.
> > 
> > Readable code is much better than rambling English at conveying this
> > stuff.
> 
> Perhaps as part of futex-test? An example set of locking primitives 
> would be a good way to test the syscall independently of glibc...

Sure, and if that ever grows into what benh wants then we're good I
think ;-)

--
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