On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 11:35 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:hm... let's try :)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:31:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:53:40 +0400
Kirill Korotaev <dev@xxxxx> wrote:
+ atomic_t ub_refcount;
+ spinlock_t ub_lock;
+ uid_t ub_uid;
Why uid? Will it be possible to club processes belonging to different
users to same bean counter.
oh, its a misname. Should be ub_id. it is ID of user_beancounter
and has nothing to do with user id.
But it uses a uid_t. That's more than a misnaming?
It used to be uid-related in ancient times when the notion of container
hadn't formed up.
"user" part of user_beancounter name has the same origin :)
Is it similarly irrelevant now? If so perhaps a big rename could be used
to make the names clearer (s/user_//, s/ub_/bc_/, ...).