Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:50:35 -0700 | From | Darren Hart <> | Subject | Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call. |
| |
On 06/12/2011 07:11 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>> Off topic: current futex documentations are near terribly unclear and >>> many futex op are completely undocumented. They are one of root cause >>> that every change can make compatibility issue. (;_; >> >> What documentation are you referring to? The futex man page is a wreck, >> and I'm not sure what to do with it since glibc removed the futex() >> call. You now have to wrap the syscall manually anyway. > > Honestly, I don't know linux man pages policy at all. example, gettid(2) > also need to be wrap syscall manually. and it's documented and NOTES section > describe "Glibc does not provide a wrapper for this system call; call it > using syscall(2)".
Something like that would be good. I don't have any experience pushing man-page updates. This page seems to document the process:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
> > Or, if nobody want to update the doc, shouldn't we just remove futex(2) man > pages? out date docs are often wrong than nothing. I dunno.
I'd prefer to see it updated as I know of several users of the interface outside of glibc.
> > >> If you are referring to the futex.c file itself, I have been documenting >> functions as I modify them. If you found any of those lacking, please >> let me know which ones and I'll try to clean them up. If you're >> referring to those that remain undocumented, please send a doc patch and >> I'll review and help get it upstream. I'd like to see this improved as well. > > No. I think the comments of futex.c are very good, at least, than a lot of mm code. ;) > >
-- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
| |