On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > The man page for sem_init(3) says: > > A non-zero value for pshared specifies a > shared semaphore that can be used by multiple processes, which this > implementation is not capable of. > > Is this still correct? I'm asking, both because it seems strange to > not return an error if the implementation does not support pshared > semaphores, and because the threads library seems to expect > it to work. Eg: > > int > _sem_init(sem_t *sem, int pshared, unsigned int value) > { > semid_t semid; > > semid = (semid_t)SEM_USER; > if ((pshared != 0) && (ksem_init(&semid, value) != 0)) > return (-1); > <.... > > > So is the man page out of date, or is the userspace code future-proof > for when the kernel catches up? The code should probably return -1 and ENOTSUP. Why don't you use named semaphores if you want process shared (sem_open)? Shouldn't those work? -- DEReceived on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 20:19:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:58 UTC