Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 11:59 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> 
>>Dave, taskref sounds a bit too much generic for me...
> 
> 
> I completely agree.  It's a pretty generic name.  In the kernel, though
> it does provide lookups to tasks.  I think the in-kernel task vs.
> process naming means that it is more consistent if we use something with
> "task" in it.  It may be called a "process identifier" in userspace but,
> in the kernel, it appears to deal squarely with tasks.  
> 
> 
>>But I can't provide some better name :/
>>
>>pid             - number
>>pref (or tref)  - process (task) ref, e.g. pid(filp->f_owner.pref)
>>pref_struct     - former pid_struct, e.g. struct pref_struct pref; 
> 
> 
> Not bad.  But, it would be nice to get away from pid-like names.  Part
> of the problem with things like 'struct pid_struct' is that the
> structure name is nice, but people will still do:
> 
> 	struct pid_struct pid;
> 
> And we're back to square one. :(

exactly! that's why I propose to call it pref_struct and do:
struct pref_struct pref;

i.e. to remove word "pid" from any code which is not dealing with 
numbers.
pid(pref) macro on the other hand returns numeric identifier.

Thanks,
Kirill

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers