From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos O'Donell" Subject: Documenting MT-safe vs. MT-unsafe. Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:32:25 -0400 Message-ID: <51F08029.1000403@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Michael Kerrisk , Alexandre Oliva , Peng Haitao , GNU C Library , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Peng, The work that you are doing documenting multithreading safety in the linux kernel man pages is excellent, and very useful. Thank you for working on this. Michael, Peng, 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? 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? 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