From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mq_unlink.3: ATTRIBUTES: Note function that is thread-safe Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:35:46 +0200 Message-ID: <539814E2.9020701@gmail.com> References: <1402285503.1804.34.camel@fedora> <5395F590.5060005@gmail.com> <1402381722.1169.1.camel@fedora> <539719C1.4050009@gmail.com> <1402465502.20654.7.camel@fedora> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1402465502.20654.7.camel@fedora> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Qian Lei Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, carlos-v2tUB8YBRSi3e3T8WW9gsA@public.gmane.org, aoliva-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Peng Haitao List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Hello Qian Lei, On 06/11/2014 07:45 AM, Qian Lei wrote: > Hello Michael > > Thank you for your suggestions, I'll CC Peng Haitao and add > "Reviewed-by" in my patches. I want to check that we have not misunderstood each other here. My idea is that the Reviewed-by: tag should be added only if the other person has actually reviewed the patch. I'll normally accept patches from the two of you without the need for the Reviewed-by: tag, but it would be nice to have that extra level of assurance, if possible. Cheers, Michael > Qian Lei > > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:44 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> On 06/10/2014 08:28 AM, Qian Lei wrote: >>> Hello Michael >>> >>> Yeah, You are right. I'm working together with Peng Haitao. >> >> Hello Qian Lei, >> >> Thanks for the info, >> >> I do not know how closely you are working together, but if you are >> reviewing each other's work, it would be great if you CCed each >> other on your patches, and perhaps also provided an "Reviewed-by" >> for each other's work. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael >> >> >>> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 19:57 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>>> On 06/09/2014 05:45 AM, Qian Lei wrote: >>>>> The function mq_unlink() is thread safe. >>>> >>>> Hello Qian Lei, >>>> >>>> Am I correct to assume that you are working together with Peng Haitao? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Qian Lei >>>>> --- >>>>> man3/mq_unlink.3 | 5 +++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/man3/mq_unlink.3 b/man3/mq_unlink.3 >>>>> index 19b977f..bf49e9c 100644 >>>>> --- a/man3/mq_unlink.3 >>>>> +++ b/man3/mq_unlink.3 >>>>> @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ was too long. >>>>> .B ENOENT >>>>> There is no message queue with the given >>>>> .IR name . >>>>> +.SH ATTRIBUTES >>>>> +.SS Multithreading (see pthreads(7)) >>>>> +The >>>>> +.BR mq_unlink () >>>>> +function is thread-safe. >>>>> .SH CONFORMING TO >>>>> POSIX.1-2001. >>>>> .SH SEE ALSO >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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