From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 23 23:08:36 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E0916A4CC for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-current@mawer.org) Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out3.iinet.net.au (outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out3.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06B713C4B2 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:08:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-current@mawer.org) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAK4bHkfLzq3r/2dsb2JhbAAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,320,1188748800"; d="scan'208";a="171185999" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.24.1.1]) ([203.206.173.235]) by outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out3.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2007 07:08:20 +0800 Message-ID: <471E7E9C.60706@mawer.org> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:07:08 +1000 From: Antony Mawer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <471BDA2E.9040801@elischer.org> <471D34D8.8020009@elischer.org> <9bbcef730710221747w4d338e78mb9dbf5e2eb37908@mail.gmail.com> <471D4758.2040209@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <471D4758.2040209@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: kthreads->kproc and back to kthread.. next patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:08:36 -0000 On 23/10/2007 10:59 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: ... >> >> (don't get me wrong, I have nothing against kthreads<->kprocs :) ) > > Alan Cox is here next to me and we are discussing whether all the > threads that > are in the kernel should be put under PID 0 and have it called "kernel" > instead of "swapper". It's swapper thread would be called "swapper" > however. This would seem like a sensible naming system / structure from a non-kernel-hacker point of view... :-) --Antony