Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:12:05 +0400 | From | Stas Sergeev <> | Subject | Re: Concerning a post that you made about expandable anonymous shared mappings |
| |
Hi.
William Tambe wrote: > I understand your concern. But since I am working on a dynamic memory > management code that I wish to use with other projects that I have, I > didn't find appropriate to use shm_open. Could you please provide a detailed list of the problems you have with shm_open? If they are valid, then I can bet the patch will be applied, no matter what. :)
> In fact there is a name associated with the shared memory requested with > shm_open, so that it can be mmap(ed) in another process. And I do not > wish to have it accessible by any other process, unless I choose to do so. In this case you need to use shm_unlink() right after shm_open(). Then this shm will be accessable only to your process and its children, via an fd, and not to anyone else. And you still can do anything with it (ftruncate/mmap/mremap whatever).
> And I think remap(ing) ANONYMOUS memory kind of make a lot of things easier. In what way, exactly?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |