Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!ti-csl!tilde.csc.ti.com!pearl!pearl!mikep
From: mikep@dirty.csc.ti.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: shmat() & shmdt() questions.
Message-ID: <MIKEP.90Sep26155302@dirty.csc.ti.com>
Date: 26 Sep 90 09:53:02 GMT
References: <13782@hydra.gatech.EDU> <13783@hydra.gatech.EDU> <583@dptechno.UUCP> <1990Sep22.163631.23688@NCoast.ORG>
Sender: news@pearl.dsg.ti.com (System News Administration)
Followup-To: comp.unix.internals
Organization: Texas Instruments, Speech Mushrooms.
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: allbery@NCoast.ORG's message of 22 Sep 90 16:36:31 GMT

In article <1990Sep22.163631.23688@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
>If shared memory were in the standard namespace, this wouldn't be a problem.
> 
>Yes, this is a change of tune for me.  But I was hoping that AT&T would
>eventually integrate the two namespaces into a single one.  From the
>UNIX/WORLD description, it looks like they have... research, at least.  (See
>the article on Plan 9.)  I wonder how long before the commercial side picks up
>on that concept?

Three Chears for Brandon!  It seems to be that as soon as AT&T Information
Systems gets on the ball (perennially chasing Bell Labs and the rest of
the industry), we'll have saner IPC mechanisms in System V.

Hell, even Xenix has shared memory identifiers in the filesystem
namespace.  Ack!

-MikeP