[cgl_discussion] Re: POSIX requirements question for TEMs/ISV s/OEMs

Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky inaky.perez-gonzalez at intel.com
Tue Feb 11 11:35:12 PST 2003


Yeah, it'd be interesting if it went more lowlevel, for example:

Mutex + Advanced realtime + protection protocols {NONE, PROTECTION, INHERIT}
+ Robust mutexes extensions ... [Using the specific POSIX naming
tags/conventions]

Inaky Perez-Gonzalez -- Not speaking for Intel - opinions are my own [or my
fault]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howell, David P [mailto:david.p.howell at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:15 AM
> To: Pradeep Kathail; Chen, Terence; cgl discussion
> Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Re: POSIX requirements question for
> TEMs/ISVs/OEMs
> 
> 
> These are all covered in the basic POSIX threading feature set
> specification which I am assuming is already a requirement. 
> There may be
> upgrades for 1003.2001, but I think that we are signed up to that
> already.
> 
> Am I missing something? I know that we have been running the POSIX
> threads 
> tests since CGL began and most of these obejcts (except barriers) were
> part of this testing. Might it be right to call out the rev of the
> standard that we will conform to, assuming that the thread 
> lock objects
> are included?
> 
> Doing this piece-meal is also wrong, at least let's call out 
> the threads
> component of POSIX which includes these if we are going this way.
> Specific feature sets, like real-time extensions to the base, 
> should be
> called out
> in addition to the base capabilities. 
> 
> Dave Howell  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pradee/p Kathail [mailto:pkathail at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:31 AM
> To: Chen, Terence; cgl discussion
> Subject: [cgl_discussion] Re: POSIX requirements question for
> TEMs/ISVs/OEMs
> 
> At 2/4/2003 10:19 AM -0800, Chen, Terence wrote:
> >All, 
> >
> >As we are working on the CGL 2.0 requirements spec, I have a POSIX
> >requirements question that will need your help. Your input 
> is extremely
> >important especially if your telecom application is 
> currently relies on
> >POSIX functions .....
> >
> >Currently CGL 1.1 spec listed 6 POSIX interface (objects) APIs
> compliance as
> >requirements. They are Timer, Signal, Message Queue, Semaphore, and
> Event
> >Log. 
> >
> >Question: What are other POSIX objects that your telecom application
> relies
> >on that we should consider to add to CGL 2.0 spec as new 
> requirements?
> For
> >example, we might consider to add Mutex (under <pthread.h> 
> ). Is there
> any
> >others?
> 
> Here is the priortized list from my perspective:
>   Mutex
>   Reader-Writer Lock
>   CondVars
>   Barrier
> 
> Brgds.
> Pradeep
> 
> >Regards,
> >
> >-Terence
> >
> >These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of Intel
> Corp. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
> 



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list