Re: [RFC] shmgetfd idea

[John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>]

On 01/28/2014 01:01 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:58 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 12:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2014 11:56 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reminding me about O_TMPFILE.. I have it on my list to look
>>>> into how it could be used.
>>>>
>>>> As for the O_TMPFILE only tmpfs option, it seems maybe a little clunky
>>>> to me, but possible. If others think this would be preferred over a new
>>>> syscall, I'll dig in deeper.
>>>>
>>> What is clunky about it?  It reuses an existing interface and still
>>> points to the specific tmpfs instance that should be populated.
>> It would require new mount point convention that userland would have to
>> standardize.  To me (and admittedly its a taste thing), a new
>> O_TMPFILE-only tmpfs mount point seems to be to be a bigger interface
>> change from an application writers perspective then a new syscall.
>>
>> But maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion?
> General purpose Linux has /dev/shm/ for that already, which will not
> go away anytime soon..

Right, though making /dev/shm/ O_TMPFILE only would likely break things, no?

thanks
-john

--
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.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>