Jason Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > 
> > Almost all of the current 'proc' pointers being passed around the system
> > in syscalls will be changed to the #4 item. In addition, most accesses to 
> > curproc would point to a curthread (curr-#4) or a curr#3, so the names
> > selected will be used a lot.
> > The exctent of these edits almost makes it worthwhile to call the #4 item
> > 'struct proc' as the size of the diff would be MASSIVLY reduced.. :-).
> > (everyhting to do with sleeping, blocking, and waking up would
> > avoid changes, and everywhere a syscall passes down "struct proc *p"
> > would avoid changes.
> I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc".  I don't much
> care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
> I am of the rather strong opinion that calling #3/#4 "struct proc" is a bad
> idea in the long run.  Yes, it would reduce the diffs, but it would be
> terribly confusing to those who weren't versed with the development history
> of KSEs.

Also keep in mind that netbsd use 'struct lwp *' for #3/#4 (SA has these
combined into one entity).  If there is an easy way to not be gratuitously
different I think it would be worth it.

"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to