Davide Libenzi wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>> Maybe "struct posix_process" is more descriptive?  "struct process_posix"?
>>> "Ugly POSIX process semantics data" seems simple enough to stick in a struct
>>> name.  "struct uglyposix_process"?
>> Guys, you didn't read my message.
>>
>> It's *not* about "process" stuff.  Anything that tries to call it a 
>> "process" is *by*definition* worse than what it is now. Processes have all 
>> the things that we've cleanly separated out for filesystem, VM, SysV 
>> semaphore state, namespaces etc.
>>
>> The "struct signal_struct" is the random *leftovers* from all the other 
>> stuff. It's *not* about "processes". Never has been, and never will be. 
> 
> I proposed "struct task_shared_ctx" but you ducked :)
> 
Descriptive, correct, I like it!

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/