Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:22:18 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> Subject: Re: Process reapers Message-ID: <C5EF3CF9-0F2E-4E75-A53A-49FCC9245B83@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20141202093109.GG97072@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20141201185237.GC97072@kib.kiev.ua> <2BBA8329-C8F4-452D-B6C2-E129FCD6D666@me.com> <20141202093109.GG97072@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:43:17PM -0800, Rui Paulo wrote: >> One comment I have is that we could rename the variables to something = more meaningful instead of "p1" or "p2". If "p1" is the reaper, we = could call it "p_reaper". >>=20 > p_reaper is too confusing even to write, it is the same as the name > of the struct proc member. p1/p2 is the pattern used in dofork(), so > I followed it for new code. >=20 > I could rename p1 to something else, but also short, since LIST_* > constructs are long and clumsy. Might be, s/p1/rp/ ? Without too much bike shed=85 p_reap should work? 'reaper' is fine too. Having a mix of 2 char vars is very hard to read six months later and = for eternity after that. ;) -Alfred=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C5EF3CF9-0F2E-4E75-A53A-49FCC9245B83>