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 _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
