From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: Adding reentrancy information to safety notes? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:35:36 +0100 Message-ID: <54A30C98.4090907@gmail.com> References: <54A2C8A6.9050100@redhat.com> <54A302A1.3020706@gmail.com> <54A30624.7070207@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54A30624.7070207-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Carlos O'Donell , Peng Haitao , Alexandre Oliva , "linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , GNU C Library Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On 12/30/2014 09:08 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 12/30/2014 02:53 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> You better turn on the spell checker in your mailer (or update >> its dictionary) ;-). ("Ree_n_tran*") > > Spell checker? :-) > >>> * Add some introductory text about reetrancy in the safety >>> section. This text will discuss that AS-safe functions >>> are reetrant because they must be to be AS-safe. Note that >>> reetrant functions need not be AS-safe nor MT-safe. >> >> Sounds good to me. >> >>> * Add a "R-Safe" and "R-Unsafe" to indicate safety with respect >>> to reetrancy. >> >> Sounds odd to me. Why not just say "Reentrant" and "Nonreentrant", >> rather than add new terms? > > Sounds good to me. > > The only down side is that both of those words are quite long. > This makes the safety notes visually long. > > Any thoughts on a short form? Well, I'd say at least keep it to a recognizable abbreviation. ("Reent", "Nonreent"?) >>> * Immediately annotate all AS-safe functions as R-Safe. >> >> Okay -- modulo preceding point >> >>> * Review all of the "_r" functions for reetrance safety. >> >> Okay. >> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> My review of other Unices indicates this is probably the >>> last type of safety that documented by other systems. >> >> I am not quite clear what you mean by "last...documented". >> Do you mean: few other systems document it? > > I mean to imply that I hope we need not add any other safety > notations aside from thread safety, signal safety, cancellation > safety, and reentrancy. I have not seen any other notes in other > Unices with the exception of fork1-safe in Solaris. Have you > seen any other kinds of notes we might prepare to need in the > future? Okay -- gotcha now. No, I think those four are the main one to worry about. Cheers, Michael -- 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