Ingo Molnar wrote:* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:So are you voting for ugly_struct? ;-)On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote: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.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.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...
So it's actually *more* correct to call it the shared signal state than it would be to call it "process" state.
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.