[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1405151510430.3155@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:15:48 +0000
From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
CC: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > If I'm wrong, or we can restore the futex() call, great. If not... Should
> > we keep the man-pages and document it as syscall(SYS_futex, ..., op, ...) ?
>
> +1, is there anything preventing adding a futex wrapper... glibc folks?
See what I said at
<https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9712#c4> (with references
to previous discussions). Someone needs to take the lead on pushing to
consensus the question of what syscalls should have wrappers in glibc, and
then implement the conclusions.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists