Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <20010706010723.8626D3809@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20010705090159.D270@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Evans wrote: > 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. Also keep in mind that netbsd use 'struct lwp *' for #3/#4 (SA has these combined into one entity). If there is an easy way to not be gratuitously different I think it would be worth it. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 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?20010706010723.8626D3809>