[rtems commit] rtems: Account for file system semaphores.

[Joel Sherrill]

On Apr 27, 2014 6:43 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/2014 9:38 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Look
> > On Apr 27, 2014 5:35 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > On 27/04/2014 10:36 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >  > > On 04/26/2014 08:03 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
> >  > >> On 25/04/2014 11:51 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >  > >>> The intention with confdefs is that the user does not have to
> >  > >>> know the implicit requirements of the higher level capability
> >  > >>> they configured. User configures number of file descriptors,
> >  > >>> Ada tasks, etc.
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>> So if a filesystem needs resources, confdefs.h should reserve
> >  > >>> them.
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>
> >  > >> If the user needs more than 1 mount per configured file system the
> >  > >> user will need to supply that number.
> >  > >
> >  > > The file system tests should use this new mechanism.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > Do any tests use more than one instance of a configured file system ?
> >
> > The only case I can think of off the top of my head is mounted imfs tests.
> >
>
> Does the IMFS use a semaphore ? I do not think I added one for that file
> system. I grep'ed the libfs tree and did not see anything.

I do not think so but it was the only get case I could think of.

Doesn't mean multiple NFS or fat fs mounts isn't a reasonable possibility though.

> None of the fstests fail on the Beagleboard.
>
> Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140427/aef71192/attachment-0001.html>