From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jul  5  9:15:25 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F86E37B403
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  5 Jul 2001 09:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (InterJet.elischer.org [192.168.1.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA28067;
	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature.
In-Reply-To: <20010705090159.D270@canonware.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107051049100.27994-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

I'm tempted to call #4 lwp
to reduce the diffs with NetBSD.


On 5 Jul 2001, Jason Evans wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > 
> > Almost all of the current 'proc' pointers being passed around the system
> > in syscalls will be changed to the #4 item. In addition, most accesses to 
> > curproc would point to a curthread (curr-#4) or a curr#3, so the names
> > selected will be used a lot.
> > 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 think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc".  I don't much
> care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
> 
> I am of the rather strong opinion that calling #3/#4 "struct proc" is a bad
> idea in the long run.  Yes, it would reduce the diffs, but it would be
> terribly confusing to those who weren't versed with the development history
> of KSEs.
> 
> Jason
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message