Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:08:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:08:17 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:3333 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:08:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B4CF86E.AC11C1B@transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:07:58 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.5-pre1-zisofs i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rajeev Bector CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: new IPC mechanism ideas In-Reply-To: <20010712010204.23084.qmail@web14402.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/