From: "Fleischer, Julie N" <julie.n.fleischer@intel.com>
To: "'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch@infradead.org>, Mika Kukkonen <mika@osdl.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, cgl_discussion@osdl.org
Subject: Re: OSDL CGL-WG draft specs available for review
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:57:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D9223EB959A5D511A98F00508B68C20C17F1CB22@orsmsx108.jf.intel.com> (raw)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 1:22 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:32:25AM -0700, Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 09:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Without really big kernel changes it's hard to get full
> POSIX thread
> > > semantics. e.g. we still don't have credential sharing
> for tasks. And
> > > it doesn't lool like this makes 2.6. I'd rather remove this one..
> >
> > Ah, we are not aiming to get our features into a certain
> kernel version,
> > and actually we do not expect or even want (because of 2.6
> > stabilization) that our v2 spec kernel features get merged
> into 2.6 at
> > this point of time (some of them might, though).
> >
> > For us it is enough that the distros will pick most of the features
> > after v2 specs get released and through that adaption some of
> > those features will get merged into 2.7 or whatever is
> coming after 2.6.
> > So we are not in hurry ;-)
>
> Well, this is not doable ontop of any existing kernel without major
> suregery (introducing a credential cache and passing it down to
> every place that's doing uid/gid based access control).
>
> So none of the CGL distros can really support that.
>From the POSIX Test Suite perspective, we were planning on first focusing
testing on the CGL 2.0 priority 1 POSIX features, which would mean the
threads functions with the THR tag in IEEE1003.1-2001. But, it would be
great to know what gaps current implementations (like NPTL) have against
this tag in the POSIX spec. Is there a way we can get more details on the
current gaps you mentioned? I'm wondering how they will affect conformance
to the THR tag functions.
- Julie Fleischer
**These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
next reply other threads:[~2003-04-23 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-23 21:57 Fleischer, Julie N [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-22 20:46 OSDL CGL-WG draft specs available for review Mika Kukkonen
2003-04-22 20:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-04-23 16:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-04-24 9:39 ` Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
2003-04-24 9:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=D9223EB959A5D511A98F00508B68C20C17F1CB22@orsmsx108.jf.intel.com \
--to=julie.n.fleischer@intel.com \
--cc=cgl_discussion@osdl.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).