Re: [PATCH] libio: Remove special-case reference count

2017-09-11 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 11/09/17 20:34, Gedare Bloom wrote: The mmap() implementation has some other problems. It contains too many conditionals. It doesn't follow the object oriented design of the file system layer. The mmap() is basically a factory. The mmap_h handler should construct a mapping object. A destructo

Re: [PATCH] posix: Ignore pshared for semaphores

2017-09-11 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 11/09/17 16:03, Sebastian Huber wrote: - Joel Sherrill schrieb: On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@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 proc

Re: [PATCH] libio: Remove special-case reference count

2017-09-11 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 11/09/17 20:34, Gedare Bloom wrote: On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 08/09/17 00:08, Gedare Bloom wrote: I understand the motivation. I need to look carefully at whether this breaks the special case, and how to otherwise fix it. The change didn't introduce test

Re: [PATCH] libio: Remove special-case reference count

2017-09-11 Thread Gedare Bloom
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 08/09/17 00:08, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >> I understand the motivation. I need to look carefully at whether this >> breaks the special case, and how to otherwise fix it. > > > The change didn't introduce test suite failures. > Yeah, I negle

Re: [PATCH] posix: Ignore pshared for semaphores

2017-09-11 Thread Sebastian Huber
- Joel Sherrill schrieb: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@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

Re: [PATCH] posix: Ignore pshared for semaphores

2017-09-11 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@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 funda

Re: 3rd party package build system

2017-09-11 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nicolas Tsiogkas wrote: > Hi Chris, > > minor update on the progress. > > I managed to start the compilation correctly on Friday. Of course it fails > as the source needs to be modified. > Hopefully it is not much and it is ways in which they assumed Linux not PO

Re: 3rd party package build system

2017-09-11 Thread Nicolas Tsiogkas
Hi Chris, minor update on the progress. I managed to start the compilation correctly on Friday. Of course it fails as the source needs to be modified. On that front I haven't heard back from people responsible for the ethernet driver and if libbsd is in their scope. In general which are the opt