From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 2 20:51:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ras.wa (usswa.ozemail.com.au [203.108.45.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0DE37B401 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:51:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nelsont@switch.aust.com) Received: from exchange.wa.switch.aust.com (exchange [10.0.1.4]) by ras.wa (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6342DY22576; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:02:14 +0800 Received: from switch.aust.com (10.0.2.56 [10.0.2.56]) by exchange.wa.switch.aust.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id MY63403Q; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:53:27 +0800 Received: by switch.aust.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:57:29 +0800 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:57:29 +0800 From: nelsont@switch.aust.com To: Bakul Shah Cc: Julian Elischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <20010703115729.H475@freebsd06.udt> References: <200107022120.RAA06256@ajax.cnchost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200107022120.RAA06256@ajax.cnchost.com>; from bakul@bitblocks.com on Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:20:52PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:20:52PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > The exctent of these edits almost makes it worthwhile to call the #4 item > > 'struct proc' as the size of the diff would be MASSIVLY reduced.. :-). > > (everyhting to do with sleeping, blocking, and waking up would > > avoid changes, and everywhere a syscall passes down "struct proc *p" > > would avoid changes. I agree with you and Alfred here, Julian. > But this would confuse future hackers. Appropriate names > really help even if it means moe editing now. I have found > that the process of coming up with the right names frequently > simplifies things. I see no reason to change the name of struct proc just because its implementation is being modified. The new architecture being proposed is just a natural progression of FreeBSD's kernel; I fail to see how that warrants dropping previous UNIX kernel naming conventions. I don't think the argument that future kernel hackers would be confused is very substantial at all. -- Trent Nelson - Software Engineer - nelsont@switch.aust.com "A man with unlimited enthusiasm can achieve almost anything." --unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message