Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:01:59 -0700 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <20010705090159.D270@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021319090.13213-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021319090.13213-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Almost all of the current 'proc' pointers being passed around the system > in syscalls will be changed to the #4 item. In addition, most accesses to > curproc would point to a curthread (curr-#4) or a curr#3, so the names > selected will be used a lot. > 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 think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc". I don't much care what #2, #3, and #4 are called. I am of the rather strong opinion that calling #3/#4 "struct proc" is a bad idea in the long run. Yes, it would reduce the diffs, but it would be terribly confusing to those who weren't versed with the development history of KSEs. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010705090159.D270>