> In article <qwwd7rrgeen.fsf@sap.com>,
> Christoph Rohland <hans-christoph.rohland@sap.com> wrote:
> >
> >I implemented posix shm with its own namespace by extending filp_open
> >and do_unlink by an additional parameter for the root inode.
>
> Beautiful patch _except_ for this case. I'm really pleased with how well
> the POSIX shm code seems to integrate into the FS and VM layers, and
> that makes me happy.
>
> The one imbalance you added makes me cringe, though. I think we should
> just export it as a real filesystem, and mount it in a standard
> location. Nothing clever, just come up with a new location that is
> fixed and acceptable to all, kind of like /proc is now.
O.K. After your and Alans objections I probably have to get rid of my
separate namespace ;-(
How do I do the SYSV shm stuff then? On creation I could grab the
first superblock and create the object there. But on removal I rely on
the fs unlink function through do_unlink. How do I get the right path
for the plain unlink call? You do not propose to code the location
into the kernel, don't you?
Any advice welcome
Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/