Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:57:29 +0800 From: nelsont@switch.aust.com To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <20010703115729.H475@freebsd06.udt> In-Reply-To: <200107022120.RAA06256@ajax.cnchost.com>; from bakul@bitblocks.com on Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:20:52PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021319090.13213-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <200107022120.RAA06256@ajax.cnchost.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:20:52PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > 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 agree with you and Alfred here, Julian.
> But this would confuse future hackers. Appropriate names
> really help even if it means moe editing now. I have found
> that the process of coming up with the right names frequently
> simplifies things.
I see no reason to change the name of struct proc just because its
implementation is being modified. The new architecture being
proposed is just a natural progression of FreeBSD's kernel; I fail
to see how that warrants dropping previous UNIX kernel naming
conventions.
I don't think the argument that future kernel hackers would be
confused is very substantial at all.
--
Trent Nelson - Software Engineer - nelsont@switch.aust.com
"A man with unlimited enthusiasm can achieve
almost anything." --unknown
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?20010703115729.H475>