Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:58:08 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Kernel Thread scheduler Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111221353230.44466-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200111221142.fAMBgvh11425@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a valid point.. should I change the name in the next round a bit? and if so what to? I don't really want "k_thread", any more than I would think of changing proc to k_proc.. Theoretically a user program shouldn't even know about proc and thread.. what is there in proc.h that a user program needs? On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > Perhaps if 'proc' is put under _KERNEL. Since proc embeds a kse, ksegroup, > > and thread, it can't very easily be defined w/o including those definitions. > > #ifdef _KERNEL > #define PROC_THREAD struct thread > #else > #define PROC_THREAD void > #endif > > > PROC_THREAD *p_thread; > > etc. You get my drift. > > Exposing something called "struct thread" is just stupid, guys. You > ought to know better than this by know; at the very least it should have > been k_thread. > > -- > ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his > rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want > to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force > people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] > V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E > > > 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0111221353230.44466-100000>