On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > > Maybe "struct posix_process" is more descriptive? "struct process_posix"? > > "Ugly POSIX process semantics data" seems simple enough to stick in a struct > > name. "struct uglyposix_process"? > > Guys, you didn't read my message. > > It's *not* about "process" stuff. Anything that tries to call it a > "process" is *by*definition* worse than what it is now. Processes have all > the things that we've cleanly separated out for filesystem, VM, SysV > semaphore state, namespaces etc. > > The "struct signal_struct" is the random *leftovers* from all the other > stuff. It's *not* about "processes". Never has been, and never will be.
I proposed "struct task_shared_ctx" but you ducked :) - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
