On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

quoted

On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:

quoted

quoted

However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe

I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
completely understandable: no user-space application would want to
directly use futex(). (BTW, I mispoke in my earlier mail when I said I
wanted documentation suitable for "writers of library functions" -- I
meant suitable for "writers of *C library*".)

I fully agree with Michael here.

The futex() syscall was never exposed to userspace specifically because
it was an interface we did not want to support forever with a stable ABI.
The futex() syscall is an implementation detail that is shared between
the kernel and the writers of core runtimes for Linux.

Nonsense. 

What is nonsense?

I suspect there's a misunderstanding between worlds here. Thomas means
that the kernel ABI is stable. You mean, glibc does not want to have to
export an ABI that you have to support.

I do not want to be responsible for the futex API by having glibc provide
wrappers. That can't be nonsense since it's a glibc community decision to
make.

See my above.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/