From cth@sac.sfbay.sun.com Sun Jan 11 18:50:05 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0C2o4uK000674 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0C2o4fl035462; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:50:04 -0700 (MST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDC0040B7VFGN00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDC00LDL7VE7R30@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0C2o2T0018015; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0C2o0Jo000669; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cth@localhost) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) id n0C2o0J5000665; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0800 (PST) From: Christopher Horne Subject: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] To: PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 1900 I am sponsoring the following case for Ed Pilatowicz as approved automatic, with a requested release binding of minor. -Chris Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: ddi_strdup 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Author: Edward Pilatowicz 1.3 Date of This Document: 11 January, 2009 4. Technical Description Add ddi_strdup(9F), strdup(9F), and strfree(9F) to the DDI PROBLEM: Currently there are 6 version of strfree() and 18 versions of strdup() in the kernel. SOLUTION: The following interfaces will be introduced as Committed in when _KERNEL is defined. char *ddi_strdup(const char *str, int flag); char *strdup(const char *str); void strfree(char *str); This is targeting Nevada/OpenSolaris. No patch binding is requested since introduction of this change in an update could break compilation of existing source which defines private versions of these commonly used functions. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION: ddi_strdup(9F) is a simple wrapper around kmem_alloc() and it will allow the caller to specify KM_SLEEP or KM_NOSLEEP. strdup(9F) will invoke ddi_strdup(9F) with the KM_SLEEP flag. The behavior of these functions is undefined if 'str' is NULL. strfree() is not limited to freeing strings allocated by strdup(), it can accept any kmem_{z}alloc()'d memory with a size of "strlen(str) + 1". These functions will be documented in a new man page, string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). 6. Resources and Schedule 6.4. Steering Committee requested information 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: ON 6.5. ARC review type: Automatic 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From glenn.skinner@sun.com Mon Jan 12 14:28:54 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0CMSrU6023604 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:28:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0CMSjlH012424 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:28:52 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDD00C0RQG35900@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivrel.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.74.76]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDD0041SQG16190@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivrel (ivrel [129.146.74.76]) by ivrel.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with SMTP id n0CMSnGI001925; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) From: Glenn Skinner Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] To: PSARC-ext@sun.com, cth@sac.sfbay.sun.com Reply-to: Glenn Skinner Message-id: <200901122228.n0CMSnGI001925@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.6_36 SunOS 5.11 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-MD5: YT9bmN8M8S+O3xjXAeeIeg== X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 752 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0800 (PST) From: Christopher Horne Subject: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] ... Add ddi_strdup(9F), strdup(9F), and strfree(9F) to the DDI PROBLEM: Currently there are 6 version of strfree() and 18 versions of strdup() in the kernel. SOLUTION: The following interfaces will be introduced as Committed in when _KERNEL is defined. char *ddi_strdup(const char *str, int flag); char *strdup(const char *str); void strfree(char *str); Does the project include cleaning up occurrences of the old versions of strfree() and strdup() mentioned above and replacing then with the Committed versions introduced here? -- Glenn From edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Mon Jan 12 15:54:45 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0CNsjgK026271 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0CNseAN048401; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:54:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDD0031JUF74V00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.59]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDD00K1HUF4QG30@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0CNsecw226625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from edp@localhost) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n0CNsel2226624; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] In-reply-to: <200901122228.n0CMSnGI001925@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> To: Glenn Skinner Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, cth@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <20090112235440.GA151509@eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901122228.n0CMSnGI001925@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: edp set sender to edward.pilatowicz@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Status: RO Content-Length: 1097 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:28:49PM -0800, Glenn Skinner wrote: > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:00 -0800 (PST) > From: Christopher Horne > Subject: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] > > ... > Add ddi_strdup(9F), strdup(9F), and strfree(9F) to the DDI > > PROBLEM: > > Currently there are 6 version of strfree() and 18 versions of > strdup() in the kernel. > > SOLUTION: > > The following interfaces will be introduced as Committed in > when _KERNEL is defined. > > char *ddi_strdup(const char *str, int flag); > char *strdup(const char *str); > void strfree(char *str); > > Does the project include cleaning up occurrences of the old versions > of strfree() and strdup() mentioned above and replacing then with the > Committed versions introduced here? > i was going to remove two private versions of strdup() (in lx_audio.c and nfs4_client_debug.c) since they introduce symbol name conflicts, but i was thinking all the other copies with random names could be cleaned up with a subsequent putback(s). ed From glenn.skinner@sun.com Mon Jan 12 16:42:01 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0D0g1f5015200 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0D0fxXK004419; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:42:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDD00A03WM0BE00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivrel.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.74.76]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDD00K0LWLZQD60@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:41:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivrel (ivrel [129.146.74.76]) by ivrel.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with SMTP id n0D0fxVg002073; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:41:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:41:59 -0800 (PST) From: Glenn Skinner Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] To: edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, cth@sac.sfbay.sun.com Reply-to: Glenn Skinner Message-id: <200901130041.n0D0fxVg002073@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.6_36 SunOS 5.11 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-MD5: LTkfoKtFnVFEkmKqHduVnQ== X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 759 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:28:49PM -0800, Glenn Skinner wrote: > > Does the project include cleaning up occurrences of the old > versions of strfree() and strdup() mentioned above and replacing > then with the Committed versions introduced here? i was going to remove two private versions of strdup() (in lx_audio.c and nfs4_client_debug.c) since they introduce symbol name conflicts, but i was thinking all the other copies with random names could be cleaned up with a subsequent putback(s). Sounds good. You'll file bug reports for the ones you don't get to, I hope. -- Glenn From edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Mon Jan 12 16:45:57 2009 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0D0juTu015303 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0D0jAVs003792; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:45:52 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDD00101WSFO300@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:45:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.63]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDD000J8WSEP800@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:45:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0D0jnxr235146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from edp@localhost) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n0D0jnZM235145; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:49 -0800 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] In-reply-to: <200901130041.n0D0fxVg002073@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> To: Glenn Skinner Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, cth@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <20090113004549.GB151509@eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901130041.n0D0fxVg002073@ivrel.sfbay.sun.com> X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: edp set sender to edward.pilatowicz@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Status: RO Content-Length: 855 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:41:59PM -0800, Glenn Skinner wrote: > Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0800 > From: Edward Pilatowicz > Subject: Re: 2009/015 [ddi_strdup] > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:28:49PM -0800, Glenn Skinner wrote: > > > > Does the project include cleaning up occurrences of the old > > versions of strfree() and strdup() mentioned above and replacing > > then with the Committed versions introduced here? > > i was going to remove two private versions of strdup() (in > lx_audio.c and nfs4_client_debug.c) since they introduce symbol > name conflicts, but i was thinking all the other copies with > random names could be cleaned up with a subsequent putback(s). > > Sounds good. You'll file bug reports for the ones you don't get to, I > hope. > will do. ed From Darren.Reed@sun.com Tue Jan 13 05:08:15 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0DD8FhC020151 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0DD8D7H038238 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:08:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDE00D29V5Q2D00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:08:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com ([192.18.6.24]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDE00BXQV5ORW30@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:08:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n0DD8CJW007124 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:08:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0KDE00L01TTM9Q00@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Reed@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:08:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [129.157.18.18] by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0KDE00MQNV5HRZD0@fe-emea-10.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:08:06 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:07:57 +0100 From: Darren Reed Subject: Re: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] In-reply-to: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: Darren.Reed@sun.com To: edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Cc: Christopher Horne , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) Status: RO Content-Length: 630 Christopher Horne wrote: > .... > These functions will be documented in a new man page, > string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new > string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), > strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). > Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of this email?) For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed string(9F) please be placed in the case directory? Thanks, Darren From edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Tue Jan 13 13:25:42 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0DLPfag011573 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:25:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0DLPaOF015397; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:25:37 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDF00F09I6NC300@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:25:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.63]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDF008E7I6MG350@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:25:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0DLPYkV439267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from edp@localhost) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n0DLPYFp439266; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:25:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:25:34 -0800 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] In-reply-to: <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> To: Darren Reed Cc: Christopher Horne , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <20090113212534.GA436257@eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: edp set sender to edward.pilatowicz@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Status: RO Content-Length: 1632 On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > Christopher Horne wrote: >> .... >> These functions will be documented in a new man page, >> string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new >> string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), >> strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). >> > > Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole > way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) > as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need > to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of > this email?) > i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple private versions of strcpy() and strfree(). one of my code reviewers pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed. hence this case. by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i didn't make that a part of this case. > For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed > string(9F) please be placed in the case directory? > given how trivial these interfaces are, i'd prefer not to. i believe the current proposal compleatly documents the semantics of the new interfaces i'm introducing. (hence adding man pages would just be adding noise to this case.) if your confused about how these interfaces will behave then please ask more specific questions and i can improved the case material. if you're just interested in reviewing the final man pages i can add you on the interest list of the man page bug i'll be filing. hopefully your ok with this... thanks ed From Darren.Reed@sun.com Tue Jan 13 13:44:04 2009 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0DLi3hi012582 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0DLhi6d023558 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:44:02 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDF00H05J1D8800@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:44:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDF008S5J1BG360@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:44:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n0DLhxVS020738 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:43:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0KDF00401IWVLX00@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Reed@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:43:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([62.245.95.146]) by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0KDF00ML4J1AMP20@fe-emea-10.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:43:59 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:43:58 +0100 From: Darren Reed Subject: Re: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] In-reply-to: <20090113212534.GA436257@eng.sun.com> Sender: Darren.Reed@sun.com To: Edward Pilatowicz Cc: Christopher Horne , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <496D0B1E.5040400@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> <20090113212534.GA436257@eng.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) Status: RO Content-Length: 2305 Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > >> Christopher Horne wrote: >> >>> .... >>> These functions will be documented in a new man page, >>> string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new >>> string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), >>> strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). >>> >>> >> Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole >> way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) >> as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need >> to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of >> this email?) >> >> > > i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple > private versions of strcpy() and strfree(). one of my code reviewers > pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed. hence this case. > > by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more > string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i > didn't make that a part of this case. > It's more that I was curious if there was enough synergy with what you're doing and what exists to provide a more consistent feel to the documentation between sections 3C and 9F - not to add new interfaces to the ddi. e.g. strcpy(3c), etc, all point to string(3c), so why should strcpy(9f) need to be independat to string(9f)? >> For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed >> string(9F) please be placed in the case directory? >> >> > > given how trivial these interfaces are, i'd prefer not to. i believe > the current proposal compleatly documents the semantics of the new > interfaces i'm introducing. (hence adding man pages would just be > adding noise to this case.) if your confused about how these interfaces > will behave then please ask more specific questions and i can improved > the case material. if you're just interested in reviewing the final man > pages i can add you on the interest list of the man page bug i'll be > filing. hopefully your ok with this... > I think adding me to the interest list for the bug would be fine. I'm perfectly happy with the architecture (so please don't count me as dissenting), I think this is just something for the docs folks to think about after. Darren From edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Tue Jan 13 13:57:46 2009 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0DLvkEZ013442 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0DLviId020459; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDF00B07JO8XD00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.63]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDF003ENJO7Q4F0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n0DLvhmj445377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from edp@localhost) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n0DLvhuZ445376; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:57:42 -0800 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] In-reply-to: <496D0B1E.5040400@Sun.COM> To: Darren Reed Cc: Christopher Horne , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <20090113215742.GB436257@eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> <20090113212534.GA436257@eng.sun.com> <496D0B1E.5040400@Sun.COM> X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: edp set sender to edward.pilatowicz@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Status: RO Content-Length: 2873 On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > Edward Pilatowicz wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: >> >>> Christopher Horne wrote: >>> >>>> .... >>>> These functions will be documented in a new man page, >>>> string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new >>>> string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), >>>> strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). >>>> >>>> >>> Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole >>> way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) >>> as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need >>> to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of >>> this email?) >>> >>> >> >> i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple >> private versions of strcpy() and strfree(). one of my code reviewers >> pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed. hence this case. >> >> by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more >> string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i >> didn't make that a part of this case. >> > > It's more that I was curious if there was enough synergy with > what you're doing and what exists to provide a more consistent > feel to the documentation between sections 3C and 9F - not to > add new interfaces to the ddi. e.g. strcpy(3c), etc, all point to > string(3c), so why should strcpy(9f) need to be independat to > string(9f)? > in my proposal, i was hoping to provide a consistent feel between string(3c) and string(9f). i was planning to document strcpy() in string(9f), and then strcpy(9f) would be a link to string(9f). string(9f) would also subsume the strchr(9F), strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F) man pages, which would also become links to string(9f). there would be no independant version of strcpy(9f). does that clarify things? >>> For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed >>> string(9F) please be placed in the case directory? >>> >>> >> >> given how trivial these interfaces are, i'd prefer not to. i believe >> the current proposal compleatly documents the semantics of the new >> interfaces i'm introducing. (hence adding man pages would just be >> adding noise to this case.) if your confused about how these interfaces >> will behave then please ask more specific questions and i can improved >> the case material. if you're just interested in reviewing the final man >> pages i can add you on the interest list of the man page bug i'll be >> filing. hopefully your ok with this... >> > > I think adding me to the interest list for the bug would be fine. > > I'm perfectly happy with the architecture (so please don't count > me as dissenting), I think this is just something for the docs folks > to think about after. > cool. i'll be sure to add you to the interest list. ed From Darren.Reed@sun.com Tue Jan 13 19:51:44 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0E3phBE011274 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n0E3pXrX010377 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:51:42 GMT Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KDG00B03024QB00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KDG00BRK0221500@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n0E3pcjr000290 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0KDG00D0101EID00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Reed@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([62.245.95.146]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0KDG006PB01ED3D0@fe-emea-09.sun.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:51:13 +0100 From: Darren Reed Subject: Re: ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review] In-reply-to: <20090113215742.GB436257@eng.sun.com> Sender: Darren.Reed@sun.com To: Edward Pilatowicz Cc: Christopher Horne , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <496D6131.5000203@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200901120250.n0C2o0J5000665@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <496C922D.3040304@Sun.COM> <20090113212534.GA436257@eng.sun.com> <496D0B1E.5040400@Sun.COM> <20090113215742.GB436257@eng.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) Status: RO Content-Length: 2133 Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > >> Edward Pilatowicz wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Christopher Horne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> .... >>>>> These functions will be documented in a new man page, >>>>> string(9F). For consistency with string(3C), the new >>>>> string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F), >>>>> strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole >>>> way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F) >>>> as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need >>>> to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of >>>> this email?) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple >>> private versions of strcpy() and strfree(). one of my code reviewers >>> pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed. hence this case. >>> >>> by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more >>> string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i >>> didn't make that a part of this case. >>> >>> >> It's more that I was curious if there was enough synergy with >> what you're doing and what exists to provide a more consistent >> feel to the documentation between sections 3C and 9F - not to >> add new interfaces to the ddi. e.g. strcpy(3c), etc, all point to >> string(3c), so why should strcpy(9f) need to be independat to >> string(9f)? >> >> > > in my proposal, i was hoping to provide a consistent feel between > string(3c) and string(9f). > > i was planning to document strcpy() in string(9f), and then strcpy(9f) > would be a link to string(9f). string(9f) would also subsume the > strchr(9F), strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F) man pages, which > would also become links to string(9f). > > there would be no independant version of strcpy(9f). > > does that clarify things? > That's exactly what I was hoping for, thanks. Cheers, Darren