Re: EL/IX spec review, status

[Nick Garnett <nickg at cygnus dot co dot uk>]

"Michael A. Olson" <mao@sleepycat.com> writes:

> My argument is that shared memory is a useful abstraction for
> multi-process, and belongs there.
>

Thanks for your comments.

You are right about this, we started off trying to be as ruthless as
possible in taking things out of the APIs. The shared memory
interfaces were one of those things that I was not sure
about so I followed the old adage - "When in doubt, leave it out".

The POSIX 1003.13 Real Time Profiles document adds shared memory
objects and memory mapped files to its Realtime Controller
profile. This is roughly equivalent to our level 2. I still need time
to evaluate these profiles against EL/IX, but we might end up with the
shared memory stuff at level 2.

I have provisionally moved all the shared memory stuff into level 3 in
my current working version of the spec.

-- 
Nick Garnett
Red Hat, Cambridge, UK