C11 Re: [PATCH 3/6] termios: Use C11 mutex for input/output

[Chris Johns]

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:
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libc/sys/rtems/include/sys/_pthreadtypes.h;h=bd66c689ecf0a3ef335867b5a08d32f9dfe9041b;hb=HEAD
>
> Its about a man week of work to do this.
>

OK.

> 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?

Chris