From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec  2 18:22:25 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BF6EA5
 for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Dec 2014 18:22:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C7AE45
 for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Dec 2014 18:22:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.1.20] (c-76-21-10-192.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.10.192])
 by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F4CC341F850;
 Tue,  2 Dec 2014 10:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Process reapers
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141202093109.GG97072@kib.kiev.ua>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:22:18 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5EF3CF9-0F2E-4E75-A53A-49FCC9245B83@mu.org>
References: <20141201185237.GC97072@kib.kiev.ua>
 <2BBA8329-C8F4-452D-B6C2-E129FCD6D666@me.com>
 <20141202093109.GG97072@kib.kiev.ua>
To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:22:25 -0000


On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:43:17PM -0800, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> One comment I have is that we could rename the variables to something =
more meaningful instead of "p1" or "p2".  If "p1" is the reaper, we =
could call it "p_reaper".
>>=20
> p_reaper is too confusing even to write, it is the same as the name
> of the struct proc member.  p1/p2 is the pattern used in dofork(), so
> I followed it for new code.
>=20
> I could rename p1 to something else, but also short, since LIST_*
> constructs are long and clumsy.  Might be, s/p1/rp/ ?

Without too much bike shed=85 p_reap should work? 'reaper' is fine too.

Having a mix of 2 char vars is very hard to read six months later and =
for eternity after that. ;)

-Alfred=