| To: | takeshi_aihana@montavista.co.jp |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000. |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> |
| Date: | Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:49:57 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <m3d6v8znap.wl@aihana> |
| Organization: | TOSHIBA Personal Computer System Corporation |
| References: | <1022763778.1046.71.camel@aihana> <20020531.112847.74756483.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <m3d6v8znap.wl@aihana> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 19:09:18 +0900, Takeshi AIHANA >>>>> <takeshi_aihana@montavista.co.jp> said: takeshi_aihana> There are any differences 'struct shmid_ds' between takeshi_aihana> glibc-2.2.3 and 2.2.4 that I saw. However, I do not takeshi_aihana> think those diffs are caused this problem. Because takeshi_aihana> the 'shm_segsz` which a member of this will be takeshi_aihana> allocated on same location even if the follows members takeshi_aihana> behind 'shm_segsz' are changed; i.e. it will have same takeshi_aihana> value as 'shm_segsz' on both different structure. Is takeshi_aihana> this right? Did you check the contents of 'shm_perm'? The type of shm_perm is 'struct ipc64_perm' in kernel and 'struct ipc_perm' in libc. I suppose these definitions are differ. --- Atsushi Nemoto |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000., Takeshi AIHANA |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [patch] linux: mb() and friends again, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000., Takeshi AIHANA |
| Next by Thread: | Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000., Takeshi AIHANA |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |