Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:43:33 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [test patch] dirty shared mappings |
| |
Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes: > > > > Personally, I think we should just forget about the abomination unless > > somebody comes up with something that makes it really simple and doesn't > > impact the rest of the memory management code negatively. Almost nobody > > really uses shared anonymous mappings - and I think the people who do are > > seriously misguided. > > > Isn't an anonymous shared mapping basically the same as a SysV shared > memory block whose key has been deleted?
Really? I thought the standard UNIX shared memory definition was more like a shared memory block that has a public key (ie I thought _everybody_ got the shared memory area, not just children).
If Matthias is right, then the traditional UNIX shared memory isn't as much of an abomination as I thought. I've obviously never used it, can somebody set me straight (or test it out)?
If this is the case, then it cannot be done with just a single shared memory backing store anyway, and it really needs the kind of support that the current shmem code already does (so I could just make a anonymous shared mapping turn into a shmem block internally - fairly easy).
Linus
| |