On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > But "signal" has *nothing* to do with what the structure store nowadays, > > really. It's a pool of "things" that are not Linux task specific. > > You're ignoring reality. It has more to do with signals than with > processes. Look at *all* the fields in the top half of the structure, up > to (and including) the "tty" field. They're *all* about signal semantics > in one form or another (whether it's directly about shared signal > behaviour, or indirectly about *sources* of signals like process control > or timers). > > And renaming it really has no upsides, even *if* you had a point, which > you don't.
OTOH, the other half of the fields has nothing to do with them (signals). Not only, the more time it passes, the more ppl (reason why I posted this comment in the beginning) sees the "struct signal_struct" has a boilerplate where to store shared resources. Chosing a name like "struct task_shared_ctx" fits it, because "signals" are *a* task_shared thing, whereas all the fields on the bottom of the "struct signal_struct" (on top of the ones that ppl will want to add everytime there's somethign to be shared between task structs) are *not* a "signal". - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/