At 2018-11-15T10:03:41-0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> diff --git a/man3/pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np.3 b/man3/pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np.3
> index 3cca7d864..6b2b8db39 100644
> --- a/man3/pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np.3
> +++ b/man3/pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np.3
[...]
> +.\" Here is the relevant wording:
> +.\"
> +.\" A thread may hold multiple concurrent read locks on rwlock (that is,
> +.\" successfully call the pthread_rwlock_rdlock() function n times). If
> +.\" so, the thread must perform matching unlocks (that is, it must call
> +.\" the pthread_rwlock_unlock() function n times).
> +.\"
> +.\" By making write-priority work correctly, I broke the above requirement,
> +.\" because. I had no clue that recursive read locks are permissible.
^
This period is not in the original quotation and grammatically doesn't
belong there.
Is the Austin Group aware of the larger issue? It seems reasonable to
assume that they don't intend to mandate that system implementors
resolve an unsolved problem in computer science.
--
Regards,
Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
