[lsb-discuss] New Interfaces for 3.2/4.0
Wichmann, Mats D
mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Wed Aug 2 09:20:17 PDT 2006
>>>From the LSB perspective, the behavior required by
>> these has long been required (interfaces like mmap,
>> mlockall, and mlock).
>> For embedded-type systems it may not make sense (I presume
>> the mmu-less systems fall in this general category), but
>> that's covered, I believe, by the quote
>> "This does not include systems using subprofiles"
>Let's make sure we don't do anything that precludes or greatly
>complicates an LSB Embedded. We frequently get questions about
>if and when we're going to do one of those, and our standard
>answer is that we'd be happy to serve as a vehicle for
>such an effort if the right companies were interested in getting
>involved. As it stands now, we have neither the
>resources nor the expertise, which is why we haven't pursued it.
Right. The context I was trying to put this in was these
are options for POSIX; the thought is making them non-optional
(but smaller systems could still use the subprofiles
mechanism to exclude them). For LSB-core, the interfaces in
question are already mandatory, so any POSIX change would
have no impact. We've already figured that the embedded
equivalent of LSB-core has to have some changes as it's
too "fat" - I hadn't twigged that these would be part of
the subtraction, but that sort of information will emerge
if the work on LSB-embedded ever actually happens.
More information about the lsb-discuss