From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752095AbaEOEww (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 00:52:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:34133 "EHLO mail-ee0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbaEOEwu (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 00:52:50 -0400 Message-ID: <53744767.8090307@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 06:49:43 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Carlos O'Donell" , Thomas Gleixner CC: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Darren Hart , Ingo Molnar , Jakub Jelinek , "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Linux API Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com> <5373D0CA.2050204@redhat.com> <537430B5.2060001@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <537430B5.2060001@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> >>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>>>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc >>>>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe >>>> >>>> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and >>>> completely understandable: no user-space application would want to >>>> directly use futex(). (BTW, I mispoke in my earlier mail when I said I >>>> wanted documentation suitable for "writers of library functions" -- I >>>> meant suitable for "writers of *C library*".) >>> >>> I fully agree with Michael here. >>> >>> The futex() syscall was never exposed to userspace specifically because >>> it was an interface we did not want to support forever with a stable ABI. >>> The futex() syscall is an implementation detail that is shared between >>> the kernel and the writers of core runtimes for Linux. >> >> Nonsense. > > What is nonsense? I suspect there's a misunderstanding between worlds here. Thomas means that the kernel ABI is stable. You mean, glibc does not want to have to export an ABI that you have to support. > I do not want to be responsible for the futex API by having glibc provide > wrappers. That can't be nonsense since it's a glibc community decision to > make. See my above. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/