> > I implemented posix shm with its own namespace by extending filp_open
> > and do_unlink by an additional parameter for the root inode.
> > Also extending this to a complete filesystem should be easy (but not
> > my target).
>
> It would seem that the best way to fix the inelegance of the patch - the
> shm_open and shm_unlink syscalls, the hacks on filp_open etc would be to do
> exactly that - make it a real fs, at least for open/unlink/openddir/readdir
> even if not for read/write
This makes the sysv ipc code dependent on a mounted fs. Also the
library has to know where this shm fs is mounted to implement shm_open
etc. I do not like these ideas. But I know this is questionable.
I will redo my patch to be much less intrusive into other code.
Greetings
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/