Eric Blossom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:01:51PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I looked into this more, and conclude that there is no evidence for
>> bugs in NetBSD shm support, just perhaps resource defaults that aren't
>> big enough.
>>
>> The reason so many attachm
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:01:51PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I looked into this more, and conclude that there is no evidence for
> bugs in NetBSD shm support, just perhaps resource defaults that aren't
> big enough.
>
> The reason so many attachments are needed is that 64 objects are
> created,
I looked into this more, and conclude that there is no evidence for
bugs in NetBSD shm support, just perhaps resource defaults that aren't
big enough.
The reason so many attachments are needed is that 64 objects are
created, and each has 4 shmat calls. This seems excessive, but I
don't know if th
I fixed a memory leak in an error case in the sysv shm vmcircbuf
tests. Now the test leaves no shm turds in either success or error
cases.
I found that I had to set the number of shm segment names and segments
per process to what seem unreasonably high values. This is documented in
http://gnura
