Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > This is true based on what the POSIX requirements are, but what I wrote
> > is true *for the Linux implementation of POSIX shm.* We did it that way
> > because it makes sense.
> I'm not following you. What you talk about is the kernel
> implementation. I've written the interface the user will see at
> everything I said is true for it. There is no one-to-one
> correcpondence between names given to shm_open() and files in the
> filesystem tree, there are no slashes allowed in the names.
Interesting. I thought that was the whole purpose of shmfs?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:16 EST