Extended API Set Part 3 Preliminary Dispositions Page 1/1 Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. April 18 2006 Aardvark Summary Table ______________________ ERN 1 Accept ERN 2 Duplicate of 3 ERN 3 Accept as marked ERN 4 Accept as marked ERN 5 Duplicate of 3 ERN 6 Accept ERN 7 Accept ERN 8 Accept ERN 9 Accept ERN 10 Accept as marked ERN 11 Accept ERN 12 Accept _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 1 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 2) {DWC-API3-1} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 5 Section: 1.1 Problem: There is unneeded whitespace before the period. Action: Change "Specification ." to "Specification." _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 2 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 3) {DWC-API3-2} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_3 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 9-13 Section: 1.2 Problem: I believe that we need to specify how we believe this should be handled in the revision. Action: I am open to other suggestions, but as a starting point I suggest that we specify that all of the functions in this proposal are to be specified as a new option. I suggest that all of these functions, must be provided when an implementation claims to support the new option. If an implementation claims to support the new option, it must also support the Threads option. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 3 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 4) {DWC-API3-3} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change P3, L15-16 to something like: It is proposed that these additions comprise a new option, called the Robust Mutexes option. Add a new section before section 2.1 (and renumber following sections): 1.2 Conformance Add _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES in order in the list of options an implementation may support (following XBD P19, L704). Add a new paragraph after XBD P20, L727: If the symbolic constant _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES is defined to have a value other than -1, then the symbolic constants _POSIX_THREADS and _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED shall also be defined to have a value other than -1. Change "UX Extended Interfaces" on P3, L18 to "RM Robust Mutexes". Globally change references to the "UX" mark and shading in this draft to use "RM" instead. Add to after XBD P405, L14237 RM marked and shaded: _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES The implementation supports the Robust Mutexes option. If this symbol is defined in , it shall be defined to be -1, 0, or 200XMML. The value of this symbol reported by sysconf() shall be -1 o 200XMML. (Note that 200XMM is to be replaced by the year and month of approval of the standard.) Add to after XBD P414, L14637 (in the list of constants available for sysconf()): _SC_ROBUST_MUTEXES _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3 Line: 15-27 Section: 2 Problem: See also my comment DWC-API3-2. There are at least four sets of extended interfaces being suggested for inclusion in the next revision of SUS; calling this the Extended Interfaces option group provides no useful information. Furthermore, this is an option; not an option group. Action: Change P3, L15-16 to something like: It is proposed that these additions comprise a new option, called the Robust Mutexes option. Add a new section before section 2.1 (and renumber following sections): 1.2 Conformance Add _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES in order in the list of options an implementation may support (following XBD P19, L704). Add a new paragraph after XBD P20, L727: If the symbolic constant _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES is defined to have a value other than -1, then the symbolic constant _POSIX_THREADS shall also be defined to have a value other than -1. Change "UX Extended Interfaces" on P3, L18 to "RM Robust Mutexes". Globally change references to the "UX" mark and shading in this draft to use "RM" instead. Add to after XBD P405, L14237 RM marked and shaded: _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEXES The implementation supports the Robust Mutexes option. If this symbol is defined in , it shall be defined to be -1, 0, or 200XMML. The value of this symbol reported by sysconf() shall be -1 o 200XMML. (Note that 200XMM is to be replaced by the year and month of approval of the standard.) Add to after XBD P414, L14637 (in the list of constants available for sysconf()): _SC_ROBUST_MUTEXES _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 4 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 5) {DWC-API3-4} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add a reviewers note Note that the text is common across the volumes, and so this change to XBD is repeated in XCU and XSH in the margin codes section. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3 Line: 17-27 Section: 2.1 Problem: See also my objection DWC-API3-3. The description of the UX margin code here only applies to changes in XBD. This draft also makes changes to XSH and uses the UX (or RM) margin code and shading in it as well, but does not specify addition of this new code in that volume. Action: Unless this change goes into a file that is shared in XBD, XCU, XSH, and XRAT, add corresponding changes for XSH section 1.8.1. If it is shared between all of the volumes, add a not saying so in the Notes To Reviewers on P3, L21-22. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 5 drepper@redhat.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 Headers (rdvk# 1) {ud-extapi3-macro} Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:20:45 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_3 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 4 Line: 43 Section: Headers Problem: We should define for the robust mutexes a macro indicating the presence as we did it for all the other extensions. I suggest the POSIX names here. I think we should use these even if the extensions are only being added to XSI so that if, later, they get added to POSIX proper the macro doesn't have to change. Action: After line 43, add: The following will be added to the list of constants for options and option groups: _POSIX_ROBUST_MUTEX The implementation supports the Robust Mutex option. If this symbol is defined in , it shall be defined to be -1, 0, or 200XYZL. The value of this symbol reported by sysconf() shall either be -1 or 200XYZL. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 6 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 6) {DWC-API3-5} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 5 Line: 49 Section: 3.1 Problem: It isn't clear what "this" refers to in this sentence. Action: Change "this reliably" on P5, L49 to "this recovery reliably". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 7 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 7) {DWC-API3-6} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 5 Line: 67 Section: 3.2.1 Problem: A comma is missing. Action: Change "mutex there" on P5, L67 to "mutex, there". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 8 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 8) {DWC-API3-7} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change "First, where a ..." on P5, L75 to "A ..." . _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 5 Line: 75 Section: 3.2.1 Problem: Using first without having subsequent cases is unusual. Action: Change "First, where" on P5, L75 to "Where". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 9 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 9) {DWC-API3-8} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 6 Line: 98 Section: 3.2.1 Problem: Missing an a. Action: Change "notification of dead" on P6, L98 to "notification of a dead". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 10 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 10) {DWC-API3-9} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change "by mutex" on P8, L128 to "by robust mutex". Change "The pthread_mutex_consistent() function" on P8, L134 to "If mutex is a robust mutex in an inconsistent state, pthread_mutex_consistent()". Change line 134 The pthread_mutex_consistent( ) function can be used to mark the state protected by mutex as to The pthread_mutex_consistent( ) function can be used to mark the state protected by the mutex referenced by /mutex/ as consistent again. Change line 149 in the EINVAL error condition from: The mutex is not robust or mutex does not protect an inconsistent state To: The mutex object referenced by /mutex/ is not robust or does not protect an inconsistent state _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 8 Line: 128,134 Section: pthread_mutex_consistent Problem: This function only applies to robust mutexes. This should be made clear before we get to the 2nd paragraph of the description. Action: Change "by mutex" on P8, L128 to "by robust mutex". Change "The pthread_mutex_consistent() function" on P8, L134 to "If mutex is a robust mutex in an inconsistent state, pthread_mutex_consistent()". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 11 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 11) {DWC-API3-10} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 8 Line: 149 Section: pthread_mutex_consistent Problem: Missing period. Action: Add a period to the end of P8, L149. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 12 don.cragun@sun.com Bug in ExtAPI_3 (rdvk# 12) {DWC-API3-11} Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Implementations supporting the Robust Mutexes option are required to provide robust mutexes for mutexes with the process-shared attribute set to PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED. Implementations are allowed, but not required, to provide robust mutexes when the process-shared attribute is set to PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 10 Line: 187-188 Section: pthread_mutex_destroy Problem: Incomplete sentence. Action: Change: Some existing implementations for the robust mutex attribute function on intraprocess mutexes as well as intperocessmutexes, but this is not a requirement. on P10, L187-188 to: Implementations supporting the Robust Mutexes option are required to provide interprocess robust mutexes. Implementations are allowed, but not required, to provide intraprocess robust mutexes.