[PATCH] posix: Ignore pshared for semaphores

[Gedare Bloom]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 12/09/17 15:58, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber <
>>>>> sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok,  but why do you think that this is an error?  We can share the
>>>>>> synchronization objects among processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have processes. How do you propose to share between
>>>>> processes when RTEMS is fundamentally a single process system.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its a single process system. So, it is very easy to support sharing
>>>> between processes. Why should creating a process-shared synchronization
>>>> object fail only because its impossible to create a second process?
>>>>
>>> I would like to remove this process-shared error also from the other
>>> POSIX
>>> synchronization objects:
>>>
>>> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3125
>>> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3126
>>>
>> Do these process-shared synch objects work properly when used in a
>> single process on *nix?
>
>
> Yes, this is why I referred to the POSIX mutex documentation:
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_mutexattr_getpshared.html
>
> See also follow up (2.9.9 Synchronization Object Copies and Alternative
> Mappings):
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_09_09
>
> Which explicitly mentions semaphores.
>
Then I think they are good to support from a compliance standpoint.

>
> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>