"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a post recently (that now I can't find), that said the shm
> management was done with an interal fs. Was that Posix or sysv shm ?
SYSV shm and shared anonymous mappings are using a kern_mount of
shm/tmpfs. So the CONFIG_TMPFS does only
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you need it for POSIX shm or not... if so, I would say you do need it
> (even if it's going to take some time until POSIX shm becomes widely
> used.)
Yes, you need it. glibc 2.2 will search for a shm fs on shm_open. And
without it fails. And the
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you need it for POSIX shm or not... if so, I would say you do need it
(even if it's going to take some time until POSIX shm becomes widely
used.)
Yes, you need it. glibc 2.2 will search for a shm fs on shm_open. And
without it fails. And the
"J . A . Magallon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was a post recently (that now I can't find), that said the shm
management was done with an interal fs. Was that Posix or sysv shm ?
SYSV shm and shared anonymous mappings are using a kern_mount of
shm/tmpfs. So the CONFIG_TMPFS does only make
On 02.03 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Christoph Rohland wrote:
> >
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
> > > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching...
> >
> > Yes, it is no longer needed. You
Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
> > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching...
>
> Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there
> are not a lot
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving
> functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the
> benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply
> creating a file
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
> > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching...
Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there
are not a lot of program out there using it.
> In some
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching...
Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there
are not a lot of program out there using it.
In some ways it's
"J . A . Magallon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving
functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the
benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply
creating a file there, or
Christoph Rohland wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching...
Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there
are not a lot of program out
On 02.03 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Christoph Rohland wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ?
One step more towards easy 2.2 - 2.4 switching...
Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm,
On 02.02 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> "J . A . Magallon" wrote:
> >
> > On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
> > > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
> > > > segments?!
> > >
> > > Unfortunately we lost this
"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
>
> On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
> > > segments?!
> >
> > Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
> > now
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
> > segments?!
>
> Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
> now works only on an internal mounted instance and
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
> segments?!
Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the
directory entry to the deleted
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
segments?!
Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the
directory entry to the deleted
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
segments?!
Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not
"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
segments?!
Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm
now works only on an
On 02.02 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
"J . A . Magallon" wrote:
On 02.02 Christoph Rohland wrote:
"H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory
segments?!
Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Christoph Rohland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hi,
>
> here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1
>
> Have fun
> Christoph
>
> diff -uNr
Hi,
here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1
Have fun
Christoph
diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes
--- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:59 2001
+++ 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes Thu Feb 1 22:04:13 2001
Hi,
here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1
Have fun
Christoph
diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes
--- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:59 2001
+++ 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes Thu Feb 1 22:04:13 2001
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Christoph Rohland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Hi,
here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1
Have fun
Christoph
diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes
24 matches
Mail list logo