[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46945895.6070004@aknet.ru>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:12:05 +0400
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To: William Tambe <tambewilliam@...il.com>
CC: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
"Rohland, Hans-Christoph" <hans-christoph.rohland@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Concerning a post that you made about expandable anonymous shared
mappings
Hi.
William Tambe wrote:
> I understand your concern. But since I am working on a dynamic memory
> management code that I wish to use with other projects that I have, I
> didn't find appropriate to use shm_open.
Could you please provide a detailed list of the
problems you have with shm_open? If they are
valid, then I can bet the patch will be applied,
no matter what. :)
> In fact there is a name associated with the shared memory requested with
> shm_open, so that it can be mmap(ed) in another process. And I do not
> wish to have it accessible by any other process, unless I choose to do so.
In this case you need to use shm_unlink() right
after shm_open(). Then this shm will be accessable
only to your process and its children, via an fd,
and not to anyone else. And you still can do anything
with it (ftruncate/mmap/mremap whatever).
> And I think remap(ing) ANONYMOUS memory kind of make a lot of things easier.
In what way, exactly?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists