Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:45:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: tlambert@primenet.com Subject: Re: Problems with 3.0 Message-ID: <99Jan14.104510est.40358@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:18:07 +0000 (GMT), Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> wrote: >Another one recently discovered is that it *appears* that you can >map (read only) the same file twice letting the system decide where >to put it (pass NULL as binding location), and the second time the >system will return the same address as the first time, instead of >doing the right thing and setting up the mapping at a different >location. Why is this behaviour wrong? Given that both mappings are read-only and you haven't said that you want it mapped at a specific location, why shouldn't the system just reuse the pre-existing mapping? This is definitely easier for the kernel, and reduces system resource requirements (page table entries and suchlike). Peter -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Alcatel Australia Limited 41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 9690 5019 ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 9690 5982 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99Jan14.104510est.40358>