[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081008093325.3d0d3bd6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:33:25 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] shmat: introduce flag SHM_MAP_NOT_FIXED
> Perhaps I'm confused but my /dev/shm doesn't have any such files,
> but I see a variety of shm segments in ipcs.
>
> What would the path passed to shm_open look like?
Well right now they don't get exposed as they are created unlinked but
that is a trivial tweak to mm/shmem.c.
> > and nobody is wanting to map those at fixed addresses.
>
> You're saying it should always use the address as a search hint?
Nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out that mmap and shm_open already
provide all the needed interfaces for this for real world applications
today.
>
> Just changing the semantics unconditionally would seem risky to me. After
> all as you point out they are primarily for compatibility and for that keeping
> old semantics would seem better to me.
We don't need to change any semantics, there is a perfectly good
alternative standards based interface. At most you might want to make the
sys3 shared memory segments appear in /dev/shm/ somewhere.
Alan
--
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