From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754273AbaEONrA (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 09:47:00 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]:59114 "EHLO mail-ee0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751689AbaEONq6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 09:46:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5374C54B.7040408@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:46:51 +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: Darren Hart , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Jakub Jelinek CC: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" , lkml , Davidlohr Bueso , Arnd Bergmann , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Linux API , "Carlos O'Donell" Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com> <537407ED.8050606@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: 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 07:21 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > On 5/14/14, 17:18, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > >> On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart 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 >>> something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling >>> the syscalls directly in the futextest test suite because of this: >>> >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dvhart/futextest.git/tree/inc >>> lu >>> de/futextest.h#n67 >>> >> >> This really comes down to the fact that we should have a libinux which >> contains the basic system call wrapper machinery for Linux specific >> things and nothing else. >> >> syscall(3) is toxic and breaks randomly on some platforms. > > Peter Z and I have had a good time discussing this in the past.... And > here it is again. :-) People have a number of times noted that there are problems with syscall(), but I'm not knowledgeable on the details. I'd happily take a patch to the man page (which, for historical reasons, is actually syscall(2)) that explains the the problems (and ideally notes those platforms where there are no problems). Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/