home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Usenet 1994 January
/
usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso
/
sources
/
std_unix
/
v21
/
186
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1990-12-05
|
1KB
From jsq@cs.utexas.edu Fri Oct 5 02:42:14 1990
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA23596; Fri, 5 Oct 90 02:42:14 -0400
Posted-Date: 4 Oct 90 20:39:37 GMT
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.77)
From: tct!chip@cs.utexas.edu (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions
Message-Id: <13219@cs.utexas.edu>
References: <540@usenix.ORG> <553@usenix.ORG> <13132@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Date: 4 Oct 90 20:39:37 GMT
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Submitted-by: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
According to fouts@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.
Yes, it is obviously desirable to have IPC entities without names.
This feature is a simple extension of the present ability to keep a
plain file open after its link count falls to zero. Of course, the
committee could botch the job by making it an error to completely
unlink a live IPC.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 186