From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 5 18: 7:31 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CA637B405 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f6617NM65564 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8626D3809; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jason Evans Cc: Julian Elischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel thread system nomenclature. In-Reply-To: <20010705090159.D270@canonware.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:07:23 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20010706010723.8626D3809@overcee.netplex.com.au> 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 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. Also keep in mind that netbsd use 'struct lwp *' for #3/#4 (SA has these combined into one entity). If there is an easy way to not be gratuitously different I think it would be worth it. 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-current" in the body of the message