Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:34:21 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Michael B Allen <ioplex@gmail.com>, "Sean C. Farley" <scf@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Pls sanity check my semtimedop(2) implementation Message-ID: <200807211434.21441.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0807181112100.37999@thor.farley.org> References: <78c6bd860807121611w4f6ab44brbebfffea9929682a@mail.gmail.com> <78c6bd860807171854o6e566b2h6ee3b77008dc541f@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0807181112100.37999@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 18 July 2008 12:27:05 pm Sean C. Farley wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael B Allen wrote: > > *snip* > > > But I'll keep it in mind for the future. I don't recall why I chose > > System V semaphores originally. I think process-shared semantics in > > the POSIX implementations where not mature at the time. I would love > > to move away from System V semaphores. It's all too easy to leak them > > and trying to clean up on restart is dangerous. > > It is my understanding that process-shared is not currently supported at > least in 7. > > Does anyone know if there is any intention of this being eventually > supported? I have needed this in the past but do not need it at the > moment. It would be nice to have someday. There aren't currently plans, no. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807211434.21441.jhb>