Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:28:11 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r302194 - head/lib/libthr/thread Message-ID: <20160626162811.GD38613@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20160625223338.GA22802@stack.nl> References: <201606251130.u5PBUeGC001988@repo.freebsd.org> <20160625171440.GA19698@stack.nl> <20160625172956.GE38613@kib.kiev.ua> <20160625223338.GA22802@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:33:38AM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > To be bug-compatible with glibc, you'd need to return the wrong > [EDEADLK] error for robust errorcheck mutexes only. Robust > non-errorcheck and non-robust errorcheck mutexes return the correct > [EBUSY]. I have not checked PI and PP mutexes which probably use a > different code path. Yes, you are right, I read the glibc code wrong way. > I'm not sure whether we should copy glibc's bug, but if we do it must be > documented in the man page. I'm not happy with it because the bug may > break applications written to the standard; at least, Samba developers > should be contacted first. I tried to send the mail to samba tech list yesterday, but it did not pass. Seems that today I managed it. Still, it is pity that the only real-world consumer of the robust interface cannot exercise our implementation due to this minor issue.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160626162811.GD38613>