[RTEMS Project] #2178: Classic API semaphore counts are wrong in confdefs.h

[RTEMS trac]

#2178: Classic API semaphore counts are wrong in confdefs.h
--------------------+----------------------------
 Reporter:  chrisj  |       Owner:  joel.sherrill
     Type:  defect  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal  |   Milestone:  4.11
Component:  cpukit  |     Version:  4.11
 Severity:  normal  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:          |
--------------------+----------------------------

Old description:

> The beagleboardmx BSP fails fsdosfsformat01 while it passes with the sis
> bsp. The bbxm fails mounting the msdos file system with a "too many"
> error because there are not enough semaphores. The bbxm and the sis both
> configure 13 semaphores. This is libio 1, 5 for termios, 6 for bfbuf, and
> the test defines 1. This total has not taken into account the sparse disk
> and dosfs each have 1. The test is only passing because termios on the
> sis is not task driven and only uses 4 of the allocated 5.
>
> I assume the test's 1 is for the sparse disk which means the dosfs is not
> taken into account.
>
> Should every declared file system add to the total or should the test
> define 2 ?
>
> A number of tests fail in the same manner.

New description:

 The beagleboardmx BSP fails fsdosfsformat01 while it passes with the sis
 bsp. The bbxm fails mounting the msdos file system with a "too many" error
 because there are not enough semaphores. The bbxm and the sis both
 configure 13 semaphores. This is libio 1, 5 for termios, 6 for bfbuf, and
 the test defines 1. This total has not taken into account the sparse disk
 and dosfs each have 1. The test is only passing because termios on the sis
 is not task driven and only uses 4 of the allocated 5.

 I assume the test's 1 is for the sparse disk which means the dosfs is not
 taken into account.

 Should every declared file system add to the total or should the test
 define 2 ?

 A number of tests fail in the same manner.

--

Comment (by joel.sherrill):

 Was this pushed? Can this be closed?

--
Ticket URL: <http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2178#comment:2>
RTEMS Project <http://www.rtems.org/>
RTEMS Project