[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CF9A2F18.90E61%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 08:47:12 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
CC: "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 5/15/14, 6:46, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
wrote:
>On 05/15/2014 07:21 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 5/14/14, 17:18, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart 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
>>>> something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to
>>>>calling
>>>> the syscalls directly in the futextest test suite because of this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dvhart/futextest.git/tree/i
>>>>nc
>>>> lu
>>>> de/futextest.h#n67
>>>>
>>>
>>> This really comes down to the fact that we should have a libinux which
>>> contains the basic system call wrapper machinery for Linux specific
>>> things and nothing else.
>>>
>>> syscall(3) is toxic and breaks randomly on some platforms.
>>
>> Peter Z and I have had a good time discussing this in the past.... And
>> here it is again. :-)
>
>People have a number of times noted that there are problems
>with syscall(), but I'm not knowledgeable on the details.
>I'd happily take a patch to the man page (which, for historical
>reasons, is actually syscall(2)) that explains the the problems
>(and ideally notes those platforms where there are no problems).
>From my perspective, a named interface with specific documented interfaces
is far more usable than a vargs direct syscall. That just leaves all kinds
of room for error - which of course is why we all write our own wrappers
in our apps rather than use it directly... If we all do it, it seems to me
that is a strong indicator we should provide it in some kind of common
library. Maybe that's libc... Maybe that's libnix...
--
Darren Hart Open Source Technology Center
darren.hart@...el.com Intel Corporation
--
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