[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:
i don't think it's a good idea to force fstype.
if we want to recommend tmpfs, it's a job for sysinst, not libc.
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi
Main Index |
Thread Index |