From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 9 07:26:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D292106566B for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:26:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A86A8FC18 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:26:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B64235F3A1; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:26:25 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: fw97mea7S460TXgCbyVJbQwMViwPZl/T+p9oWeB1nJpr 1244532385 Received: from [192.168.123.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF7D25AC9C; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A2E0E9F.8050708@incunabulum.net> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:26:23 +0100 From: Bruce Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vlad Galu References: <20090601161903.GA40377@stack.nl> <4A24457C.6060100@FreeBSD.org> <200906020842.42330.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Unnamed POSIX shared semaphores X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:26:26 -0000 Vlad Galu wrote: > ... > Thanks, Ivan. I'll take a better look at this after our first release, > which is due in a couple of weeks. Right now the team efforts aren't > focused on portability, so it's a low priority issue, but something > we'd definitely like to have in the future. > I stand corrected. Having read around this, I don't see how process-shared sems could work at all, although I haven't actually tried running process-shared sem code. POSIX semaphores were however horribly broken in kernel prior to 7.2. The fix was essentially one liner. We got a very good test case from a chap in a GNATS PR. cheers BMS