Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions
Martin Fouts
fouts at bozeman.bozeman.ingr
Sat Oct 13 06:20:32 AEST 1990
Submitted-by: fouts at bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts)
>>>>> On 4 Oct 90 20:39:37 GMT, chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) said:
Chip> According to fouts at bozeman.bozeman.ingr (Martin Fouts):
>One reason to not treat every IPC facility as part of the file system:
>Shared memory IPC mechanisms which don't need to be visible to processes
>not participating in the IPC.
Chip> Yes, it is obviously desirable to have IPC entities without names.
Chip> This feature is a simple extension of the present ability to keep a
Chip> plain file open after its link count falls to zero. Of course, the
Chip> committee could botch the job by making it an error to completely
Chip> unlink a live IPC.
Chip> --
Of course, if I have to acquire a file handle for my IPC, I can't
imlement it as efficiently as if I just do it locally in shared memory
and don't bother the system about it's existance.
Marty
--
Martin Fouts
UUCP: ...!pyramid!garth!fouts (or) uunet!ingr!apd!fouts
ARPA: apd!fouts at ingr.com
PHONE: (415) 852-2310 FAX: (415) 856-9224
MAIL: 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303
Moving to Montana; Goin' to be a Dental Floss Tycoon.
- Frank Zappa
Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 205
More information about the Comp.std.unix
mailing list