Re: new IPC mechanism ideas

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Rajeev Bector wrote:
> 
> The point is that you can do IPC using
> this scheme which is
> 1) protected (as compared to a shared
>    memory (shm) scheme in which any process
>    can write anywhere and corrupt
>    everything)
> 
> 2) involves only 1 copy.
> 

You can still do it in user space, by having individual r/w shm mappings
to the controlling process, and ro mappings to the other processes; it's
still only one copy.

Introducing new forms of IPC adds to the complexity of the programming
model which is already too complex.  It therefore requires substandial
justification (unless you're doing it as a homework project in which case
you shouldn't be posting here), including presenting real-world
applications which cannot be properly served by current forms of IPC.

	-hpa