From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933297AbXDFXAA (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:00:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933313AbXDFXAA (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:00:00 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:53445 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933297AbXDFW77 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:59:59 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:59:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Ingo Molnar , "Eric W. Biederman" , Oleg Nesterov , Robin Holt , Chris Snook , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jack Steiner Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <46159987.6090006@redhat.com> <20070406104301.GB19755@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <20070406163100.GA554@tv-sign.ru> <20070406191945.GA18255@elte.hu> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc 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, 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