From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] get rid of vm_private_data and win posix shm References: <199912281914.LAA02201@penguin.transmeta.com> From: Christoph Rohland Date: 28 Dec 1999 21:48:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of "Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:14:36 -0800" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-MM@kvack.org, Alexander Viro List-ID: Linus Torvalds writes: > In article , > Christoph Rohland wrote: > > > >I implemented posix shm with its own namespace by extending filp_open > >and do_unlink by an additional parameter for the root inode. > > Beautiful patch _except_ for this case. I'm really pleased with how well > the POSIX shm code seems to integrate into the FS and VM layers, and > that makes me happy. > > The one imbalance you added makes me cringe, though. I think we should > just export it as a real filesystem, and mount it in a standard > location. Nothing clever, just come up with a new location that is > fixed and acceptable to all, kind of like /proc is now. O.K. After your and Alans objections I probably have to get rid of my separate namespace ;-( How do I do the SYSV shm stuff then? On creation I could grab the first superblock and create the object there. But on removal I rely on the fs unlink function through do_unlink. How do I get the right path for the plain unlink call? You do not propose to code the location into the kernel, don't you? Any advice welcome Christoph -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.nl.linux.org/Linux-MM/