On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:Descriptive, correct, I like it!
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:Maybe "struct posix_process" is more descriptive? "struct process_posix"?Guys, you didn't read my message.
"Ugly POSIX process semantics data" seems simple enough to stick in a struct
name. "struct uglyposix_process"?
It's *not* about "process" stuff. Anything that tries to call it a "process" is *by*definition* worse than what it is now. Processes have all the things that we've cleanly separated out for filesystem, VM, SysV semaphore state, namespaces etc.
The "struct signal_struct" is the random *leftovers* from all the other stuff. It's *not* about "processes". Never has been, and never will be.
I proposed "struct task_shared_ctx" but you ducked :)