Just for the record, I promoted 1003.13 to 10003.13 and that's not
only incorrect, but scary.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 09:27:27PM -0600, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 08:27:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The beauty of POSIX 1003.13 for the RTLinux side is that we get to
> > > define POSIX_SINGLE_PROCESS and forbid forbid fork and exec: making
> > > threads semantics much cleaner.
> >
> > Well, what you think of as a "beauty" I just consider a silly cop-out by
> > the standard. Basically, a lot of things can call themselves "compliant to
> > the letter of the law" wrt POSIX, while still leaving the _user_ out in
> > the cold.
>
> It's silly to expect to "fork" or to "exec" via a file system in a
> minimal realtime environment. These are complex activities however you
> cut it. By defining a set of execution environments, the 10003.13
> specification makes the _user_ confront the reality that some services
> don't make sense if you are prepared to put up with only a tiny
> OS overhead. POSIX 10003.13 requires you to label compliance correctly.
> So, we can very clearly tell the user that running in the RT environment
> gives you pthreads PSE51 and if you want PSE54 with all the features of
> a full service UNIX, run in the Linux environment.
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Victor Yodaiken
> Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
> www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST