Re: posix shared memory

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Hi,

yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> i have userland implementation of posix shared memory.
> (attached)
> 
> rmind proposed a kernel implementation while ago.
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2009/07/30/msg005599.html
> (thus cc:)
> 
> which way should we go?
> 
> IMO userland implementation is better because:
>       - simpler
>       - smaller
>       - a bug would have less impact
>       - "locking object in memory" functionality is better to be
>         implemented with more generic api like fcntl if necessary

We should go with the userland implementation.  After some though I
basically agree with you that facilities like memory locking can be
implemented with fcntl, mount option tmpfs or whatever.

However, I would say it would be better to create tmpfs partition
for this.  A while ago I came up with practically same code, but
also checking for the fs type:

http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/shm.c

> 
> YAMAMOTO Takashi

-- 
Mindaugas