From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  6 Sep 2015 08:02:22 -0700
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <b6b85b81d6885652f74b6e1b8d010215@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5h1GVdeK4GntK4xEUqy3-_d8QSbVWE1ZC=jEoNdPq=UTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOw7k5jDdf1jS4KD4xyaxXpOqX-cRazH74dOOJGQ=goH39RRNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<82a662b665bce9245bfda986a0604ddb@felloff.net>
	<CAOw7k5h1GVdeK4GntK4xEUqy3-_d8QSbVWE1ZC=jEoNdPq=UTA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Privalloc(2) and rfork(RFPROC|RFMEM) (was: a pair nec
	bugs)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 69352712-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> probably, since a shared bitmap would need a lock and allow
> any process to allocate a slot, which could then either be broadcast
> to allow per-process tagging (as above), or allocation of a slot of only
> local interest. even so, tprivfree is incomplete.

a slot of local interest?  doesn't malloc serve that purpose well enough?

- erik