Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-28 Thread Alan Cox
> You can get the Linux special behaviour to be able to attach to a > removed segment by its shmid by passing the file descriptor for the > posix shm from the attached process to the attaching process. > > Did I miss something? Not that I've ever used 8) - To unsubscribe from this list: send t

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-28 Thread Christoph Rohland
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are fundmental things shm* can do that mmap cannot. Does posix > shm handle those (leaving segments alive but unattached being the > obvious one) Yes: shmget == shm_open (+ ftruncate(fd, size)) shmat== mmap (0, si

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-28 Thread Alan Cox
> > So should we go for SUSv2? > > No. > I regard shm* as obsolete. New programs will probably not use it. > So, the less we change the better. Moreover, the SUSv2 text is broken. There are fundmental things shm* can do that mmap cannot. Does posix shm handle those (leaving segments alive but un

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-28 Thread Andries Brouwer
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 01:01:53PM +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote: > > My first reaction is that this patch is broken, since > > one usually specifies size 0 in shmget to get an existing > > bit of shared memory > That's still covered: The check is moved out of shmget into the create > function.

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-28 Thread Christoph Rohland
Andries Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 01:16:44PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > I happen to see this post, but have not followed earlier discussion. > See a patch fragment (The patch does not show a lot of context. You should look at the whole files) > >

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-27 Thread Andries Brouwer
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 01:16:44PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On 27 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote: > > > Hi Linus, > > > > The following patchlet bring the handling of shmget with size zero > > back to the 2.2 behaviour. There seem to be programs out, which > > (erroneously) rely on

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-27 Thread Christoph Rohland
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 27 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote: > > The following patchlet bring the handling of shmget with size zero > > back to the 2.2 behaviour. There seem to be programs out, which > > (erroneously) rely on this. > > Just curiosity: do you know if any

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-27 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
On 27 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Hi Linus, > > The following patchlet bring the handling of shmget with size zero > back to the 2.2 behaviour. There seem to be programs out, which > (erroneously) rely on this. Just curiosity: do you know if any specification (POSIX?) defines this be

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-27 Thread Christoph Rohland
Dave Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think I've come to the conclusion that Xine does not in the case > I've found, rely on this - it is a separate bug related to Xv > telling xine that it needs 0 bytes. Yes, but this bug did not show on 2.2. It simply failed in shmget. Probably it ma

Re: [Patch] shmmin behaviour back to 2.2 behaviour

2000-12-27 Thread Dave Gilbert
On 27 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Hi Linus, > > The following patchlet bring the handling of shmget with size zero > back to the 2.2 behaviour. There seem to be programs out, which > (erroneously) rely on this. Hi Christoph, I think I've come to the conclusion that Xine does not in t