Unnamed POSIX shared semaphores

[Bruce Simpson]

Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> If process-shared semaphores really work, then the above structure is
> not a pathological case. Effectively, sem_t is carved in stone. So
> process-private semaphores should continue to have most of their stuff
> in a separately allocated structure, to preserve flexibility.
>   

There was an inadvertent race in FreeBSD's POSIX semaphores which I 
fixed in HEAD and STABLE about 6 weeks before 7.2 was released.

I believe process-shared POSIX semaphores now work -- the Python 
'multiprocessing' regression test now runs to completion with no errors 
on both HEAD and STABLE.

cheers,
BMS