From: "MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:14 PM
> Wow !!. This is good.. Does this mean that we'll have a *full* > implementation of the SHMEM atleast now ??.. I'm eagarly waiting for it > :-).. A full implementation of only shm ... if you want 'memory management', you pass the base pointer and size to rmm :) I noted one thing that perhaps was forgotten. We have two forms of attach(), one that you pass the key into, and the second (better called reattach()) that you will pass the apr_shm_t into, obtained from the parent, that the child must call after fork to have a true shm segment once again. If it wasn't called, I believe the child gets a private copy of the shm (which is no fun.) Unless I'm missing something obvious...
