lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9B6136A3-52B4-4AE2-9805-21634E25530A@mac.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:28:44 -0400
From:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@...ricas.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: init's children list is long and slows reaping children.

On Apr 09, 2007, at 14:09:51, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> So are you voting for ugly_struct? ;-)
>
> 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.

Maybe "struct posix_process" is more descriptive?  "struct  
process_posix"?  "Ugly POSIX process semantics data" seems simple  
enough to stick in a struct name.  "struct uglyposix_process"?

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ