Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:37:10 +0000 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-stable@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-stable-8@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r214984 - stable/8/lib/libproc Message-ID: <D113DA2D-A54B-4707-8DAF-D6789816298A@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <ygeiq07onb6.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <201011081331.oA8DViNq033723@svn.freebsd.org> <ygek4knoou0.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <C8E452B9-2AAD-4F18-9176-EDD9BCC2CAB5@FreeBSD.org> <ygeiq07onb6.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 8, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > Hi, >=20 >>>>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:06:12 +0000 >>>>>> Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> said: >=20 > rpaulo> It's on my plans, but basename_r is not POSIX and there was a = private discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The conclusion is = that we should adopt the Android semantics of basename_r(). >=20 > I found the thread, and understood it. However, I still wonderling if > breaking thread-safeness in proc_sym.c is okay, though it may not be > necessary. We can live with it for now while I work on a new basename_r(). Regards, -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D113DA2D-A54B-4707-8DAF-D6789816298A>