On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> >>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) 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 >>>> >>>> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and >>>> completely understandable: no user-space application would want to >>>> directly use futex(). (BTW, I mispoke in my earlier mail when I said I >>>> wanted documentation suitable for "writers of library functions" -- I >>>> meant suitable for "writers of *C library*".) >>> >>> I fully agree with Michael here. >>> >>> The futex() syscall was never exposed to userspace specifically because >>> it was an interface we did not want to support forever with a stable ABI. >>> The futex() syscall is an implementation detail that is shared between >>> the kernel and the writers of core runtimes for Linux. >> >> Nonsense. > > What is nonsense? I suspect there's a misunderstanding between worlds here. Thomas means that the kernel ABI is stable. You mean, glibc does not want to have to export an ABI that you have to support. > I do not want to be responsible for the futex API by having glibc provide > wrappers. That can't be nonsense since it's a glibc community decision to > make. See my above. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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
