From: n...@usenix.org (Nicholas M. Stoughton)
Subject: Standards Update, POSIX.1: System API
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: <3rsf8o$o5h@cygnus.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104614557
approved: s...@cygnus.com (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan)
sender: s...@cygnus.com
x-submissions: std-u...@uunet.uu.net
organization: USENIX Standards Report Editor
reply-to: std-u...@uunet.uu.net
newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Submitted-by: n...@usenix.org (Nicholas M. Stoughton)
USENIX Standards Report Editor
Nicholas M. Stoughton < n...@usenix.org>, Report Editor
POSIX.1: System API
Shravan Pargal < par...@ironwood.cray.com> reports on the
April 24-28, 1995 meeting in Irvine, Ca.:
This meeting in Irvine was a busy one for the POSIX.1a
working group. Draft 12 of POSIX.1a was sent out to the
ballot group in November, with the ballot closing on March
15th, 1995. Ballots were in and needed to be worked on
during this meeting. The following were the primary agenda
items at this meeting:
1. Removable media plenary
2. Ballot resolutions
The first issue tackled after the meeting was called to
order was a plenary with the removable media group. Chuck
DeBaun(Fermilab) presented a proposal to the working group
for a set of functions for serial media control. The
proposal covered open(), close(), read() and write() issues
related to serial media. In addition there was a proposal
for additional interfaces to formalize and expand ioctl like
functions (to be known as mtio functions) as related to
serial media.
The working group split up into smaller groups of two or
more members to tackle the large number of ballots that
needed resolutions. Each group was assigned a chapter to
work on and resolve ``easy'' ballot requests. In addition
the groups tried to sort the ballots by issue, forming sub-
groups within each chapter. The groups then brought lists of
issues back to the working group as a whole for discussion.
After working on ballot classification and resolution for 2
days, the group discussed the state of the returned ballots.
Ballots returned seemed to be split into three roughly equal
chunks: checkpoint/restart, resource limits, and everything
else. The working group decided (thanks to a suggestion from
Nick Stoughton and Chuck Karish), to split the POSIX.1a
project authorization request (PAR) into three PARs,
submitting checkpoint/restart and resource limits as
separate standards. Two new PARs will be submitted to the
SEC 45 days in advance of the next meeting. However since
the earliest this could be approved is in July, the working
group decided that a final decision would be held off until
the July meeting.
- 2 -
In between ballot resolution, discussions on were held on
proposals for getshconf() submitted by David Willcox and
signals submitted by Alan Rowe. The getshconf() interface
was defined to meet a need to separate POSIX.1 and POSIX.2
symbols and yet be able to get one from the other in a
portable form. The signals discussion will continue through
e-mail.
The POSIX.1a WG will continue to work on resolving ballot
objections and interpretations resulting from the Draft 12
ballot. A final decision to go ahead and form the new
project teams for checkpoint/restart and resource limits
will be made at the next meeting.
Volume-Number: Volume 35, Number 39
|