This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:25:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201555320 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orli0itbm5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211322040 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or4n75t4b7 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221324200 dot 5029 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5csdvx dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221535560 dot 8443 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or61rjs2li dot fsf at livre dot home> <orhab3qktz dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311251755140 dot 12149 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orpppop975 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385414332 dot 3152 dot 3643 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orhaayoqk8 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385549084 dot 3152 dot 5896 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orr49vixh6 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1386005390 dot 3152 dot 13274 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <or7gblbtxy dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 17:44 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I think I have a precise definition. Can you back up your claim by
> >> >> giving a concrete situation in which you believe the definition fails
> >> >> to capture some notion of safety?
>
> >> Note the âconcreteâ. What I'm looking for is something like âone thread
> >> calls this function specified as MT-Safe while another thread calls this
> >> other function also specified as MT-Safe, but I can't tell what the
> >> expectations are WRT their behavior: it could be X, Y, or Z, and it
> >> ought to be specifiedâ
>
> > (1) Initially, flockfile(file1) and flockfile(file2) both happened
> > before the following:
>
> > (2) A coherency example:
>
> > (3) Another example:
>
> Thanks a lot! These all have enlightened me as to points about which
> you seek more clarity in the definition.
>
> I'd love to follow up on them, but since it would take me quite some
> time to collect and locate all of the passages of POSIX that would
> support my reasoning and conclusions, I consulted with mgmt about
> prioritizing this over completing the code review and adding safety
> notes to the remaining ~200 functions in the manual.
>
> Since the schedule was already somewhat tight to make 2.19 before this
> week's worth of discussions, we decided I should complete the review
> first.
[...]
> That's the jist of it. Please let me know if you'd like me to follow up
> with the entire argument when I'm done with the higher-priority work.
>
Yes, let's follow up after this round of documentation is complete.
Thanks!