On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:13 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > >> The futex man-pages (2,7) from version 3.15-1 and at least a few earlier > >> versions are considerably out of date with respect to the current > >> implementation. They don't document newer op codes, such as: > >> > >> FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET > >> FUTEX_WAKE_BITSET > >> FUTEX_WAKE_OP > >> FUTEX_LOCK_PI > >> FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI > >> FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI > >> FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI > >> > >> These new wait op codes now use absolute timeouts, while the original > >> FUTEX_WAIT uses a relative timeout. Lastly, and most importantly, glibc > >> has removed the futex() wrapper to syscall(SYS_futex, ...). With that in > >> mind, would people prefer that we simply remove the futex man-pages > >> (2,7)? > > > > A readable text about the interaction between the futex value and the > > various futex ops and how to build proper locking primitives with them > > would be helpful I think, however doing that in the form of a locking > > library (as has been suggested at KS) seems plenty fine to me. > > > > Readable code is much better than rambling English at conveying this > > stuff. > > Perhaps as part of futex-test? An example set of locking primitives > would be a good way to test the syscall independently of glibc... Sure, and if that ever grows into what benh wants then we're good I think ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
