Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:18:57 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: getsysfd() patch #1 (Re: Virtual memory question) Message-ID: <200301222218.h0MMIvcF042981@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200301222216.h0MMGZMD010110@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200301220304.h0M34TMB099694@apollo.backplane.com> <200301222052.h0MKqP4N041427@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200301222144.h0MLifiC009829@apollo.backplane.com> <200301222210.h0MMA0gB042902@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200301222216.h0MMGZMD010110@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:16:35 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> said: > Garrett, I fail to see what you are argument is here. Are you arguing > for the addition of a system call or against? shm_open() is irrelevant > to the discussion No, it is not irrelevant. It is an existing, standardized interface that will support precisely the behavior that people seem to be asking for. There is no need to invent another, proprietary interface; we have too many of those already. >, it is a libc function which has no capability whatsoever Bullshit. Go back and read what I wrote. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301222218.h0MMIvcF042981>