Re: Does "options P1003_1B_SEMAPHORE" still exist?

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:20:29PM +0200, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 6 May 2014 19:43:24 +0200
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> > > As has been mentioned before, the (kernel) semaphore implementation
> > > in -current doesn't work well.
> >
> > I haven't seen any such mentioning. PR?
> 
> I didn't find a PR, but there was at least some discussion when I
> added the pkgsrc Python fix, starting here:
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2012/08/15/msg020907.html

All discussion in that sound a lot like justifying broken code.
Implementing semaphores as files is explicitly allowed by the standard,
especially given the arguments around sem_open.

> While I don't think that it causes these problems, an obvious
> deficiency is that our kernel semaphores get inherited to child
> processes, while Posix says that they should be closed on exec.

Where?

Joerg