On 05/15/2014 09:49 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 09:18:22AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>> On 05/15/2014 04:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:23:38PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>>>> There are other syscalls like gettid() that have a: >>>>> NOTE: There is no glibc wrapper for this system call; see NOTES. >>>> >>>> Yes, can we finally fix that please? It gets tedious having to endlessly >>>> copy/paste that thing around. >>> >>> What exactly would you like fixed? >> >> Not having gettid() in glibc. > > Get in the line ;-). > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6399 I have no objections to this, but I absolutely object to this without someone documenting and gathering consensus for consistent terminology to be used between the kernel and glibc. The relevant comment is here: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6399#c26 I'd like to see a glibc manual patch for the threads.texi file, which can be completely linux-specific, to document gettid() and nomenclature. It should talk about the nomenclature used to discuss these interfaces and explain when it is or isn't valid to use a task id and with what functions. For example does gettid *really* return a pid_t as considered by userspace? It's not a full out process... 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
