On Apr 09, 2007, at 14:09:51, Bill Davidsen wrote:
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.
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.
Maybe "struct posix_process" is more descriptive? "struct
process_posix"? "Ugly POSIX process semantics data" seems simple
enough to stick in a struct name. "struct uglyposix_process"?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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]
