![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Stas Sergeev wrote: > 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). > Ok, now I find myself without any other arguments :-) shm_unlink() right after shm_open() is a solution. >> And I think remap(ing) ANONYMOUS memory kind of make a lot of things >> easier. > In what way, exactly? > > I wrote the above not knowing that I could use shm_unlink() right after shm_open(). But still, I have lost a considerable amount of time trying to figure that out. It appeared all natural to me that I could just remap ANONYMOUS and get what I wanted. And the worst thing here is that the man pages do not let you know about that. Sincerely, William Tambe - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-07-12 08:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||