From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 11:54:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from a.mx.everquick.net (a.mx.everquick.net [216.89.137.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3EC37B4EC for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net) Received: from localhost (eddy@localhost) by a.mx.everquick.net (8.9.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02189 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:54:39 GMT X-EverQuick-No-Abuse: Report any e-mail abuse to Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:54:39 +0000 (GMT) From: "E.B. Dreger" To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: mmap() w/ MAP_STACK question Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greetings, I'm interested in using mmap() with MAP_STACK. After writing a couple of test programs and looking at vm_map_insert() and vm_map_stack(), it appears that vm_map_stack() behaves as if MAP_FIXED were set. Why is this? I would like to allocate stack space without having to search for available blocks. Is there any harm in modifying vm_map_stack() to search for a free block, a la vm_map_insert()? I've not delved extensively into the kernel, and am asking before I tinker in new territory. :-) TIA, Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet / EternalCommerce Division E-Mail: eddy@everquick.net Phone: (316) 794-8922 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message