[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: posix shared memory
yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> i have userland implementation of posix shared memory.
> 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
Main Index |
Thread Index |