On 2001-Jul-02 14:16:16 -0700, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The time has come (now that we have a design) to assign names to the
>various entities that will be created when we implement the
>(current name) KSE code.
I'm reasonably sure that there's prior art here. What do other OS's
call these entities? Our naming convention should at least be not
inconsistent, and preferably consistent with other implementations.
This is especially true for related implementations (BSDi and *BSD -
if any of them have gone this path).
This affects code portability between the *BSDs, developers who use
multiple Unix variants as well as 3rd party vendors.
>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.. :-).
IMHO, what we call #4 has the biggest impact (extending to what we
can reasonable call #1). As I see it, the tradeoffs are:
Keeping the same name:
+ Everyone is familiar with it
- The entity it references is no longer a `process' and hence the
name is no longer descriptive.
Changing the name:
+ The chosen name would be descriptive of its contents.
- Massive diffs required (I count ~5200 references in 648 files in
/sys and there are more references in userland).
Personally, I'd prefer to see struct proc renamed to reflect its
new role as a thread context.
Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
