On Apr 27, 2014 6:43 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 28/04/2014 9:38 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Look > > On Apr 27, 2014 5:35 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 27/04/2014 10:36 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > > On 04/26/2014 08:03 AM, Chris Johns wrote: > > > >> On 25/04/2014 11:51 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > >>> The intention with confdefs is that the user does not have to > > > >>> know the implicit requirements of the higher level capability > > > >>> they configured. User configures number of file descriptors, > > > >>> Ada tasks, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> So if a filesystem needs resources, confdefs.h should reserve > > > >>> them. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> If the user needs more than 1 mount per configured file system the > > > >> user will need to supply that number. > > > > > > > > The file system tests should use this new mechanism. > > > > > > > > > > Do any tests use more than one instance of a configured file system ? > > > > The only case I can think of off the top of my head is mounted imfs tests. > > > > Does the IMFS use a semaphore ? I do not think I added one for that file > system. I grep'ed the libfs tree and did not see anything.
I do not think so but it was the only get case I could think of. Doesn't mean multiple NFS or fat fs mounts isn't a reasonable possibility though. > None of the fstests fail on the Beagleboard. > > Chris
_______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
