From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Garnett To: "Michael A. Olson" Cc: elix@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: New API specification document Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 02:23:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200002072339.PAA63716@triplerock.olsons.net> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00017.html "Michael A. Olson" writes: Hi Mike, > I have a question on the revised spec. > > Several of the interfaces are marked "o" (optional). Are these optional > based on the inclusion of a package, like a file system? The intention here is to indicate interfaces whose inclusion is under the direct control of the user, rather than those that as a consequence of some other configuration option. For example, mkfifo() is only possible when there is a certain amount of file system infrastructure present, but the user can also opt not to have FIFOs at all. Does that make sense? > > Also, some of the interfaces are marked "m" (modified semantics possible). > Generally, it looks like these are intended to provide some basic support > but maybe not the full POSIX semantics of the corresponding calls (for > example, printf and friends). Is that right? Is there a minimum > conformance level for these? > That is exactly right. At present we don't really have a clear idea what the minimum level for these will be (apart from the null option of returning ENOSYS, but that is not really very useful). To some extent this will be configurable; for example, the semantics of the signal functions will vary depending on what signal handling options are configured. However, at level one it all depends on the capabilities of the underlying system. -- Nick Garnett Red Hat, Cambridge, UK