Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
or lets just face it and name it what it is: process_struct ;-)
That'd be fine too! Wonder if Linus would swallow a rename patch like
that...
I don't really see the point. It's not even *true*. A "process"
includes more than the shared signal-handling - it would include files
and fs etc too.
So it's actually *more* correct to call it the shared signal state
than it would be to call it "process" state.
we could call it "structure for everything that we know to be ugly about
POSIX process semantics" ;-) The rest, like files and fs we've
abstracted out already.
Ingo
So are you voting for ugly_struct? ;-)
I do think this is still waiting for a more descriptive name, like
proc_misc_struct or some such. Kernel code should be treated as
literature, intended to be both read and readable.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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]
