![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Apr 09, 2007, at 14:09:51, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-04-09 19:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||