On 06-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>> Jason Evans wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [...]
>> > 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.
>
> Also comments by several others..
>
> Ok so here's how it looks to me now: (still not final)
>
>#1 struct proc (decided)
>#2 struct schedgrp ,lpwg (lwp-group), prigrp (priority-group)
> subproc (subprocess)
>#3 struct upctx (upcall-context), virtcpu, thrdslot (thread slot)
>#4 struct lwp (decided)
>
> usually the 'lwp' will be passed around so diffs to NetBSD will be
> minimalised.
>
>
> my favourites are:
> proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp
>
> lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is
> scheduled.
One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's
name should reflect that. (It's view as a group of #4's is more important than
as being a part of #1.) So, if you go with lwp (yuck) for #4, #2 should be
lwpgrp or some such. I still think lwp's overloaded nomenclature is a reason
to stay away from it. *shrug*
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
