On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Noriyuki Soda wrote:

> > This shouldn't be difficult to implement, either, since it's just
> > the same thing as mlock(2), right?
>
> mlock(2) takes virtual address range as its argument, but SHM_LOCK
> takes a (shm identifier of) memory object as its argument.
> So, there is some difference.

In the end, all mlock does is a uvm_map_pageable() on (part of)
the map for that range. I don't see why we couldn't do that on the
entire map for the SysV shared memory segment. (But I'll admit I've
not looked too closely.)

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC