Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:15:14 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Virtual memory question Message-ID: <200301140415.h0E4FEuJ078072@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20030114002831.1C8C12A89E@canning.wemm.org> <3E2381F8.85BB90A0@imimic.com> <200301140339.h0E3dVQa073160@apollo.backplane.com> <3E238DEF.14DFA7E1@imimic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:I'm happy with the NULL path as an extension to this interface.
:
:> (2) I don't see how/where one specifies the size of the memory object
:> in shm_open(). Does this mean we have to implement ftruncate()?
:
:I think the size is implied by the mmap()ing. A second, larger
:mmap()ing would have to grow the object. An object should never shrink.
:
:Regards,
:Alan
"Ick". But it would be extremely easy to implement that sort of
auto-grow. I'll read up on the shm_open() spec. Personally speaking
I'd like an explicit size to be specified during the open/creation phase.
It occurs to me that we could use this to implement far better MFS / MD
support then we have now. Hrmmm.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301140415.h0E4FEuJ078072>