From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 11 07:04:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647261065672 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:04:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B5D8FC0A for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so3126700bwz.13 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:04:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VuFe51IVkh9E+OAbMcxCiIxKY8xNPcNhSG+7dcmlcnM=; b=SXZNnAXTOngoS+14KXW9wrlUV2ChxtLBijm7BAZjW/A+uJtzzQ5HKc4cxefY3XAQd9 zVNgAaJyGJfPL7s6fRug/gj5wXi439R6C5wBVkJaF/oPTCOIP9JfFABOwi490yyvAB9I M2aLlK0uwe+yae7HUcRh9JzG/b0Z2WB91DaFA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xD1p7SbgliwkKGw8DrZeNu9Rnv7bh9ouqijHEHEPsVkRw+SMp5+UkcSJyg6p3T2Fmg 4dkem63gtw6H1bxU1BKUXvXYc4z/0MV4uBz/K1a73sxeoCLAydofOLlNhxbDXTGdSo8A ZxyR004YonXPqT+KUn0lkWF9bRbVbnDwxDqig= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.175.1 with SMTP id v1mr4935931bkz.140.1281510289882; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.82.6 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:04:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <19537.46031.343891.856928@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> References: <19537.40008.156802.846800@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <19537.46031.343891.856928@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:04:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Garrett Wollman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: POSIX compliance issue with mmap(2) X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:04:51 -0000 On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Garrett Wollman w= rote: > <= said: > >> There are a number of opengroup manpages I've seen use the `shall >> fail' tort in the ERRORs sections -- some being connect(2), open(2), >> etc. I'll see if I can get clarification on whether or not there is >> any wiggle room if it states "shall fail if". > > "Shall" is a mandatory requirement; if it were optional, it would say > "may" instead. =A0(A conformance test has to include at least one test > for every instance of the word "shall" in the standard.) According to the Austin Group folks, shall is a very clear term [1] For an implementation that conforms to POSIX.1-2008, describes a feature or behavior that is mandatory. An application can rely on the existence of the feature or behavior. For an application or user, describes a behavior that is mandatory. should [1] is a different item entirely. So mmap(2) needs to be fixed. Shall I create a patch for this? Thanks, -Garrett [1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap01.html