From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peng Haitao Subject: Re: Documenting MT-safe vs. MT-unsafe. Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:13:52 +0800 Message-ID: <51F097F0.2010007@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <51F08029.1000403@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51F08029.1000403-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Michael Kerrisk , Alexandre Oliva , GNU C Library , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.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