Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:27:05 -0500 (CDT) From: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael B Allen <ioplex@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Pls sanity check my semtimedop(2) implementation Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0807181112100.37999@thor.farley.org> In-Reply-To: <78c6bd860807171854o6e566b2h6ee3b77008dc541f@mail.gmail.com> References: <78c6bd860807121611w4f6ab44brbebfffea9929682a@mail.gmail.com> <200807171005.53148.jhb@freebsd.org> <78c6bd860807171042o54627c78nfcc0c19717b75f1e@mail.gmail.com> <200807172015.11460.jhb@freebsd.org> <78c6bd860807171854o6e566b2h6ee3b77008dc541f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Sean -- scf@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0807181112100.37999>