Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:07:08 +1000 From: Antony Mawer <fbsd-current@mawer.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kthreads->kproc and back to kthread.. next patch Message-ID: <471E7E9C.60706@mawer.org> In-Reply-To: <471D4758.2040209@elischer.org> References: <471BDA2E.9040801@elischer.org> <ffijts$tqt$1@ger.gmane.org> <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org> <9bbcef730710221747w4d338e78mb9dbf5e2eb37908@mail.gmail.com> <471D4758.2040209@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23/10/2007 10:59 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: ... >> >> (don't get me wrong, I have nothing against kthreads<->kprocs :) ) > > Alan Cox is here next to me and we are discussing whether all the > threads that > are in the kernel should be put under PID 0 and have it called "kernel" > instead of "swapper". It's swapper thread would be called "swapper" > however. This would seem like a sensible naming system / structure from a non-kernel-hacker point of view... :-) --Antony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?471E7E9C.60706>