On 2 May 2010, at 04:03, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
> As far as I can tell, calling shmctl IPC_RMID is immediately destroying
> the shared memory segment even though there is at least one process
> attached to it. This is interesting and confusing because Solaris 10's
> behavior description of sh
On 01/05/10 23:03, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
> I call shmctl IPC_RMID immediately after one process has
> attached to the segment because, at least on Linux, this
> only marks the segment for destruction.
That's correct, looking at the kernel code (at least in the
current git master) the functio
On 02/05/10 06:49, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> I think you should look into this a little deeper, it
> certainly used to be the case on Linux that setting
> IPC_RMID would also prevent any further processes from
> attaching to the segment.
That certainly appears to be the case in the current master
o
On May 2 2010, Ashley Pittman wrote:
On 2 May 2010, at 04:03, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
As to performance there should be no difference in use between sys-V
shared memory and file-backed shared memory, the instructions issued and
the MMU flags for the page should both be the same so the perfo
Hi there,
I've been playing around with Coccinelle, the semantic
patching system (packaged in Ubuntu 10.04) and using it
to try and detect things like unchecked malloc(). It's
not perfect, for instance it flags up calls to assert()
on the result of the malloc as bad, even though they're
not, but
