Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 10:49:30 EST

Next message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC] changes to buffer.c (was Test12 ll_rw_block error)"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Repeatable Oops in 2.4t13p4ac2"
In reply to: Andries Brouwer: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Next in thread: Christoph Rohland: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Reply: Christoph Rohland: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > So should we go for SUSv2?
>
> No.
> I regard shm* as obsolete. New programs will probably not use it.
> So, the less we change the better. Moreover, the SUSv2 text is broken.

There are fundmental things shm* can do that mmap cannot. Does posix shm
handle those (leaving segments alive but unattached being the obvious one)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Daniel Phillips: "Re: [RFC] changes to buffer.c (was Test12 ll_rw_block error)"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: Repeatable Oops in 2.4t13p4ac2"
In reply to: Andries Brouwer: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Next in thread: Christoph Rohland: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Reply: Christoph Rohland: "Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:11 EST