On 07/25/2013 09:32 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > At present I am a little worried that glibc is going > to document what we want to be true e.g. MT-unsafe, > but that the linux kernel man pages project is going > to document what is actually implemented e.g. MT-safe. > This may lead users to believe functions are safe > when they are not guaranteed to be so. > > The other problem is that the two documents might > diverge and this information is very important. > > What can we do to keep the two documents in sync? > At present, when make the patch, I will look up Alex's result (branch lxoliva/thread-safety-docs). If thread-safety level is the same with Alex or POSIX, I will send the patch. otherwise, the patch will be put off. > When Alex completes his project we'll have MT-safety > data (with a series of exceptions) for almost all > of the glibc functions. Could we use that data to > drive the generation of the attributes in the > linux kernel man pages? > Maybe this will wait for a long time:( -- Best Regards, Peng > Comments? > > Cheers, > Carlos. > -- 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
