Fixing Posix semaphores
julian at elischer.org
Mon Dec 13 14:21:35 PST 2004
Joe Kelsey wrote:
>I have a desire to fix posix semaphores in at least 5.3. The current
>implementation doesn't actually follow the "spirit" of the standard,
>even though it technically qualifies in a somewhat degraded sense. I
>refer to the fact that the current implementation treats posix
>semaphores as completely contained inside the kernel and essentially
>divorced from the filesystem. The true "spirit" of the standard places
>the semaphores directly in the file system, similar to named pipes.
>However the current implementation treats the supplied "name" as a
>14-character identifier, required to begin with a slash and contain no
>other slashes. Pretty weak.
>Well, in order to fix this, we need to add file system code and come up
>with a new type. I currently have some time to spend on something like
>this and am willing to put in whatever effort it takes. Does anyone
>want to add their own ideas or requirements?
>I currently run 5.3, but I suppose I could think about running current
>at some point in the future.
I don't think that the spirit is to do what you suggest.
I have always interpretted it to be a separate namespace.
does the posix "mknod" definition mention how to make a semaphore?
An interesting problem but I'm not sure if it's needed..
P.S. CC's trimmed to arch (correct place) and current (not so correct
next round should probably stay on just "arch".
>freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-arch