Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:20:24 -0600 From: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Virtual memory question Message-ID: <3E2381F8.85BB90A0@imimic.com> References: <20030114002831.1C8C12A89E@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E2381F8.85BB90A0>