RFD: Rework/extending functionality of mdev

James Bowlin bitjam at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 21:47:14 UTC 2015


On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Laurent Bercot said:
>   This is POSIX.1-2008, the very specification that Linux, and other
> operating systems, are supposed to implement. It is the authoritative
> reference to follow whenever you're designing Unix software. I don't
> understand what your objection is.

I tried to make my complaint clear by highlighting two portions of
text, one by Harald and one by you.  I apologize that my post was
unclear to you. You omitted one part of text I had highlighted so
I repeat it here:

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 01:41 PM, James Bowlin said:
> > > kernel guaranties not only atomicity for write operations, but
> > > also for read operations (not in POSIX, AFAIK).   
> > >                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

The post you were replying to already admitted that multiple fifo
readers was not POSIX compliant.

1) Why argue over something that has already been admitted?
   It does not bolster your argument and it does not put in you
   a good light.

2) While violating POSIX is usually not a good idea, it is well
   known that POSIX is woefully incomplete and there are
   long-standing extensions to POSIX on all real-world system
   including busybox.  I propose an extension to Godwin's law
   that if someone objects to something because it relies on a
   long-standing extension to a POSIX standard then that person
   automatically loses the argument.

I think your suggestions have been very valuable and your
proposals may well represent a superior solution technically.
I am a little frustrated by the silly arguments because I am
so looking forward to seeing the fruition of your ideas.


Peace, James


More information about the busybox mailing list