daron.chabot at usask.ca
Wed Mar 21 23:08:36 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 14:22 -0500, Eric Norum wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > As for changing current semantics of RTEMS_SIMPLE_BINARY_SEMAPHORE,
> > I'm
> > afraid some existing code might be affected, and adding yet another
> > different kind of "semaphore" may add to already existing confusion.
> I don't think that you would be changing the semantics (other than
> fixing a possible bug) -- how many ways are there for a simple binary
> semaphore to operate?
> > Anyway, if decision will be to add true binary semaphores support
> > to the
> > RTEMS API, I'll be happy to provide a patch. [Note that RTEMS kernel
> > does have the support].
> I vote yes.
> Any comments from the rest of you folks out there?
Just my 0.02, but I find it difficult to comment constructively without
knowing exactly what the problem(s) and the proposed solution(s) are...
More information about the users