* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd almost prefer to just not add kernel threads to any parent process
> list *at*all*.
i think part of the problem is the legacy that the list is artificially
unified: tasks that 'will possibly exit' are on the same list as tasks
that 'have already exited'. If we split it up into its natural data
structure, having a list of tasks that are there and do not intend to
exit, plus a separate list of tasks that are exiting and want to notify
their parent, all this scanning goes away. I can see no real reason for
this other than legacy - i dont think the semantics of the wait4() API
force us to scan all those threads.
putting the freshly reaped tasks at the 'head' of the list is just a
fancy (and incomplete) way of splitting the list up into two lists, and
i'd advocate a clean split. Just like have have split the ptrace_list
away from the main list too.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
