This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:59:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201555320 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orli0itbm5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211322040 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or4n75t4b7 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221324200 dot 5029 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5csdvx dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221535560 dot 8443 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <1385158981 dot 3152 dot 2785 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <or1u27s2de dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 10:56 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> > may-leave-locks-held-if-cancelled-asynchronously,
>
> >> leak-locks
>
> > Those suggestions all look fine to me.
>
> Can you explain why lockleak suggests it's the lock object that fails to
> be destructed, but leak-locks is fine as a shorthand for the above?!?
>
I can't; I agree it's contradictory to the other discussion we had, but
it's not meant that way :)
I think that leak-locks would be fine compare to the longer sequence of
words (if we want to say that it "leaks locks"). Nonetheless, I still
think that it leaks lock _acquisitions_, and that we should say that if
we can all be comfortable with that. For example, we could perhaps also
call it "leak-lock-acquisitions", "may-not-release-locks", or something
like that.
- References:
- Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.