On 04/03/2014 01:51 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 04:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
>> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
>> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
>> drafted the following text for the ms
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:12:58AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > * Clearer intentions. Looking at the existing code and the code
> > history, the fact that flags=0 behaves like flags=MS_ASYNC appears
> > to be a coincidence, not the result of an intentional choice.
>
> M
[Resending this message from yesterday, since, as Richard Hansen
pointed out, I failed to CC bug-readline@]
[CC += Peter Zijlstra]
[CC += bug-readl...@gnu.org -- maintainers, it _may_ be desirable to
fix your msync() call]
Richard,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Richard Hansen wrote:
> On 201
Hi Greg,
On 04/03/2014 02:57 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" writes:
>
>> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
>> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
>> drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page:
Guys, I don't really see why you get so worked up about this. There is
lots and lots of precedent of Linux allowing non-Posix (or non-standard
in general) arguments to system calls. Even ones that don't have
symbolic names defined for them (the magic 3 open argument for device
files).
Given that
On 2014-04-03 04:25, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [CC += Peter Zijlstra]
> [CC += bug-readl...@gnu.org -- maintainers, it _may_ be desirable to
> fix your msync() call]
I didn't see bug-readl...@gnu.org in the CC list -- did you forget to
add them, or were they BCC'd?
>> * Clearer inten
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" writes:
> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
> drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page:
>
> NOTES
>According to POSIX, exactly one of MS_S
On 04/03/2014 04:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
> drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page:
>
> NOTES
>According to POSIX,
[CC += Peter Zijlstra]
[CC += bug-readl...@gnu.org -- maintainers, it _may_ be desirable to
fix your msync() call]
Richard,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Richard Hansen wrote:
> On 2014-04-02 07:45, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 04:10 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrot
On 2014-04-02 07:45, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 04:10 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:25:45PM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote:
>>> For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
>>> be specified, but not both." [1] The
Hi,
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 04:10 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:25:45PM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote:
> > For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
> > be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
> > "both" condition.
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:25:45PM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote:
> For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
> be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
> "both" condition. Add a test to ensure that the caller specified one
> of the flags; fail w
Hi!
> > and there's no good
> > reason to believe that this behavior would have persisted
> > indefinitely.
> >
> > The msync(2) man page (as currently written in man-pages.git) is
> > silent on the behavior if both flags are unset, so this change should
> > not break an application written by som
On 2014-04-01 15:32, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Richard,
>
> On 04/01/2014 08:25 PM, Richard Hansen wrote:
>> For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
>> be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
>> "both" condition. Add a test to en
Richard,
On 04/01/2014 08:25 PM, Richard Hansen wrote:
> For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
> be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
> "both" condition. Add a test to ensure that the caller specified one
> of the flags; fail with EINV
For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
"both" condition. Add a test to ensure that the caller specified one
of the flags; fail with EINVAL if neither are specified.
Without this change, specifying ne
For the flags parameter, POSIX says "Either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC shall
be specified, but not both." [1] There was already a test for the
"both" condition. Add a test to ensure that the caller specified one
of the flags; fail with EINVAL if neither are specified.
Without this change, specifying ne
17 matches
Mail list logo
