[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface
From: |
Neal H Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface |
Date: |
Mon, 7 May 2001 21:46:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.15i |
> At some point in the not too distant past I went over the shm interfaces in
> contemplation of a Hurd implementation. I don't really recall anything
> specific about it, but my vague recollection is that I concluded there was
> just one new interface or quirk of functionality that would be required to
> meet the basic shm semantics (leaving aside the pid reporting and all
> that). Maybe shm lets you continue to open a file after it's been deleted
> but still has live users? Something like that.
The quirk is that the shmid _object_ is not remove from the system until
after the last user has detached, however, the shmid_ds is removed on
the IPC_RMID. Thus, normal Hurd semantics win: we remove the node (and
the shmid_ds) and the memory object is not killed until all users
vm_deallocate it.
pgpz7SasK7qj6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/05
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Neal H Walfield, 2001/05/07
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/08
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/08
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Neal H Walfield, 2001/05/10
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/10
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Neal H Walfield, 2001/05/11
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/11
- Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface, Neal H Walfield, 2001/05/14
Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface,
Neal H Walfield <=