From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1750712AbXDFVwB@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1750712AbXDFVwB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:52:01 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750717AbXDFVwA
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:52:00 -0400
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:35430 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750712AbXDFVv5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:51:57 -0400
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
       Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Jack Steiner <steiner@americas.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061427130.8738@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061449231.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704051352370.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <46159987.6090006@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704051825400.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org>
 <m1hcru9rki.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20070406104301.GB19755@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com>
 <m1mz1l8qdr.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20070406163100.GA554@tv-sign.ru>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061119090.8738@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
 <m1wt0p5o1y.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061214450.8738@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
 <20070406191945.GA18255@elte.hu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704061427130.8738@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > 
> > 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...

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.

		Linus