|
Viewing Issue Simple Details
[ Jump to Notes ]
|
[ Issue History ]
[ Print ]
|
|
ID |
Category |
Severity |
Type |
Date Submitted |
Last Update |
|
0000716 |
[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1] System Interfaces |
Editorial |
Clarification Requested |
2013-06-22 19:22 |
2019-06-10 08:55 |
|
|
Reporter |
dalias |
View Status |
public |
|
|
Assigned To |
|
|
Priority |
normal |
Resolution |
Accepted |
|
|
Status |
Closed |
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
Rich Felker |
|
Organization |
musl libc |
|
User Reference |
|
|
Section |
rename |
|
Page Number |
1797 |
|
Line Number |
57900-57905 |
|
Interp Status |
--- |
|
Final Accepted Text |
|
|
|
Summary |
0000716: Atomicity specification of rename() uses the word "processes" but means "threads" |
|
Description |
The text in question is:
"If the old argument points to the pathname of a file that is not a directory, the new argument shall not point to the pathname of a directory. If the link named by the new argument exists, it shall be removed and old renamed to new. In this case, a link named new shall remain visible to other processes throughout the renaming operation and refer either to the file referred to by new or old before the operation began. Write access permission is required for both the directory containing old and the directory containing new."
The word "processes" should be replaced with "threads". This is almost certainly a mistake/oversight carried forward from before threads existed.
|
|
Desired Action |
Replace the word "processes" with "threads" in the cited text.
|
| Tags |
tc2-2008 |
|
|
Attached Files |
|
|
|
Relationships 
