Davide Libenzi wrote:
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 :)
Descriptive, correct, I like it!
--
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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/
