tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: posix shared memory

Hi, (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> i have userland implementation of posix shared memory.
> (attached)
> rmind proposed a kernel implementation while ago.
> (thus cc:)
> which way should we go?
> IMO userland implementation is better because:
>       - simpler
>       - smaller
>       - a bug would have less impact
>       - "locking object in memory" functionality is better to be
>         implemented with more generic api like fcntl if necessary

We should go with the userland implementation.  After some though I
basically agree with you that facilities like memory locking can be
implemented with fcntl, mount option tmpfs or whatever.

However, I would say it would be better to create tmpfs partition
for this.  A while ago I came up with practically same code, but
also checking for the fs type:

> YAMAMOTO Takashi


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index