Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>>>> or lets just face it and name it what it is: process_struct ;-)
>>> That'd be fine too! Wonder if Linus would swallow a rename patch like 
>>> that...
>> I don't really see the point. It's not even *true*. A "process" 
>> includes more than the shared signal-handling - it would include files 
>> and fs etc too.
>>
>> So it's actually *more* correct to call it the shared signal state 
>> than it would be to call it "process" state.
> 
> we could call it "structure for everything that we know to be ugly about 
> POSIX process semantics" ;-) The rest, like files and fs we've 
> abstracted out already.
> 
> 	Ingo
So are you voting for ugly_struct? ;-)

I do think this is still waiting for a more descriptive name, like 
proc_misc_struct or some such. Kernel code should be treated as 
literature, intended to be both read and readable.

-- 
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/