From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jan 13 19:20:36 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AFE37B401 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cleitus.hosting.swbell.net (cleitus.hosting.swbell.net [216.100.99.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AC343EB2 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:20:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alc@imimic.com) Received: from imimic.com (adsl-216-63-78-18.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [216.63.78.18]) by cleitus.hosting.swbell.net id WAA26523; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:20:25 -0500 (EST) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.14] Message-ID: <3E2381F8.85BB90A0@imimic.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:20:24 -0600 From: "Alan L. Cox" Organization: iMimic Networking, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Wemm Cc: Matthew Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Virtual memory question References: <20030114002831.1C8C12A89E@canning.wemm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Wemm wrote: > > "Alan L. Cox" wrote: > > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > ... > > > How about something like: > > > > > > getmemfd(). > > > > > > > Roughly speaking, this is shm_open(3), which we currently implement > > using files. > > .. which is expressly what I wanted to avoid. > Your response is ambiguous. :-) It doesn't say whether you want to avoid shm_open(3) the interface or rather FreeBSD's implementation of it. Personally, I'm all for changing the implementation in the way Matt describes, but I haven't yet heard a rationale for a new interface. Specifically, the interface proposed thus far could be emulated by fd = shm_open("unique name", ...); shm_unlink("unique name"); The spec also seems to makes the creation of unique names easy: "If name does not begin with the slash character, the effect is implementation-dependent." So, a per-process name space is allowed for names not beginning with slash. Furthermore, the only operations that I know of on a "path" are shm_open() and shm_unlink(), and my reading of those was that a hash table keyed on the "path" was a legal implementation. In summary, a new implementation would be good, but I haven't seen the rationale for a new interface, especially given that shm_open(3) is an existing standard. Regards, Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message