Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/06/09/14:22:59
"Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> Do we need a cygwin_internal interface? How do OSes like linux do this?
>
> Maybe it makes sense to start exposing things via the /proc interface, if
that
> is the way linux does it.
AFAICT, Linux doesn't (currently?) offer the sysv ipc objects through the
/proc filesystem. You can get hold of current mmap'ed segments that way
(which may include shmat'ed segments) but there is no generic /proc/shm/...
or whatever.
It does give you access via the wondrously generic sysctl(2) interface; i.e.
by its equivalent of the cygwin_internal() i'face.
So my thoughts are that this is the Right Way to do it but . . . not right
now?
To begin with, I'll hack in the relevant interfaces to the cygserver daemon
to get a list of shmids and test this via a cygwin_internal() interface.
When it works (ha ha), I'll submit a patch but w/o the cygwin_internal()
interface.
At that stage we can re-discuss the /proc issue. Am I right in thinking that
there may be a re-think on the whole filesystem / mount implementation
coming up? i.e. to add a generic vfs interface (or the like)? If that's the
case, I'd prefer to hang back until that work happens. Of course, if that's
not really on the horizon yet, I could just go ahead w/ the current /proc
scheme.
Plausible?
// Conrad
- Raw text -