From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 2 21:18:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ras.wa (usswa.ozemail.com.au [203.108.45.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C488A37B405 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nelsont@switch.aust.com) Received: from exchange.wa.switch.aust.com (exchange [10.0.1.4]) by ras.wa (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f634SlY22762; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:28:47 +0800 Received: from switch.aust.com (10.0.2.56 [10.0.2.56]) by exchange.wa.switch.aust.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id MY6340PA; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:20:01 +0800 Received: by switch.aust.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:24:09 +0800 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:24:09 +0800 From: nelsont@switch.aust.com To: Daniel Eischen Cc: Julian Elischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. Message-ID: <20010703122409.I475@freebsd06.udt> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from eischen@vigrid.com on Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:23:06PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:23:06PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > 2) The second structure owns the scheduling parameters. ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ > I think Mike's point about not naming this kseg was good (to avoid > confusion with kernel segment). > > scheduling param, schedparam? ``schedparam'' gets my vote. > Other than renaming kseg to something else, the names we were using > previously seemed OK. Agreed. The whole notion of SAs and KSEs were derived from research papers based on these naming schemes. I fail to see the justificat- ion in obfuscating the details of our new implementation by sporting a naming scheme completely unrelated to its original heritage. I don't think there's enough merit in deducing a new naming scheme when there's nothing really wrong with the naming scheme originally devised by the researchers. If it conceptually already exists in the kernel, but is just having its implementation reworked (i.e. struct proc), keep the name to be consistent with UNIX kernel convention. If it's new to the kernel (KSEs, SAs, KSEGs etc), I say keep the naming scheme as close to its theoretical/conceptual heritage as possible. > Dan Eischen Regards, Trent. -- 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