Subject: Re: Behavior of calling System V shared memory functions if not in kernel
To: Greg Earle <firstname.lastname@example.org.CA.US>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 12/02/1994 22:10:49
[ this was an entirely different question, so it gets a different message... ]
> I mentioned previously that it looks like the shared memory stuff is going
> through some changes.
s/is going/did go/
Unless i'm mistaken, all of the changes that are going to be have been
made (at least, w.r.t. the batch related to syscall numbering/calling.)
> I am anxious to know what the status is (and whether
> a back-port patch for the above problem would be considered).
Said changes should be done by now. in -current kernels, the
COMPAT_10 option should get you binary compatibility.
As for whether or not a change to 1.0 re: SIGSYS/ENOSYS will ever
become a patch: "Not bloody likely."