Re: Concerning a post that you made about expandable anonymous sharedmappings

[Stas Sergeev]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/