Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:06:25 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads comment Message-ID: <20010801230625.C1BA138CC@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107311550441.35786-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > Y'know, > > if we'd called the thread a "process" > and the thing that has a pid a "task" (or something) > > the actual functional changes would be a HECK of a lot > clearer in the diffs because I have 50k of functional changes and > 800+KB of > > - struct proc *pB > + struct thread *td; > > > (just a comment) > > Actually if we left processes as processes and then created > 'super-processes', I think you could start now and > still finish first. > > (so far I have replaced about 4000 instances of struct proc with struct > thread (mostly by hand)) IMHO, it is better to do it right rather than take a shortcut that we're going to regret later. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010801230625.C1BA138CC>