On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Interesting. That pretty much conflicts with what write(2) itself is
> defined as in the same specification
They may mean that writes get "as much atomicity" between threads as
specified in other places (which is not a whole lot). In which case we're
certainly totally according to spec (since Linux has exactly the same
guarantees for threads as for anything else - since we just don't even
_care_ if it's a thread or not).
It may be that the extra POSIX wording comes from user-space thread
libraries that did "magic things" with select loops etc for IO using
non-blocking file descriptors (which, together with some latency
guarantees, could turn a single write into a series of smaller blocked
writes).
That would explain the POSIX wording - that they are supposed to be "as
thread safe" as a native write, even when they are wrapped inside a magic
threaded IO library. Maybe the "in the effects specified in IEEE Std
1003.1-2001" part is exactly about the fact that write is _not_ actually
specified to be totally atomic by the _normal_ POSIX stuff, but that they
wanted to make it clear that it's supposed to be "as atomic" as it's
supposed to be.
Hmm? Trying to be a language lawyer over a spec is always painful. I'd
suspect that the people who wrote that part didn't even really think about
it a lot, they just meant that they were "thread safe" in the sense that
you can call them concurrently without the system blowing up.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
