C11 Re: [PATCH 3/6] termios: Use C11 mutex for input/output
chrisj at rtems.org
Mon Dec 19 21:31:20 UTC 2016
On 19/12/2016 17:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16/12/16 21:50, Chris Johns wrote:
>> If the same storage model and performance can be gained with POSIX why
>> not look at moving in this direction.
> We should change the POSIX synchronization objects
> * mutexes,
> * rwlocks,
> * barriers,
> * condition variables,
> * keys, and
> * semaphores
> into self-contained objects from my point of view.
Why has threads been left off?
> Since the POSIX types
> are now defined in a system-specific header file, this is quite easy:
> Its about a man week of work to do this.
> The performance will be not optimal, since we have to check if we
> actually have a non-recursive, recursive, ceiling or robust mutex.
What is optimal performance?
More information about the devel