On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 12:46 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > These can be a bit confusing:
> >
> >       struct pid *pid;
> >       struct pid *pgrp;
> >       struct pid *sid;
> 
> How is it more confusing then?
> 
>         pid_t pid;
>         pid_t pgrp;
>         pid_t sid; 

They confuse me the same way. :)

We can't do much about userspace.  But, we do have quite a bit of
control how we name things in the kernel, and I think there's a better
way.

Eric, we all know that you understand this stuff.  I'm just trying to
make it a bit more approachable for anyone that comes along in the
future.  Serge, Suka, Kirill and Pavel have all expressed some level of
dissatisfaction, and I think we all agree that 'struct pid' is at the
heart of the issue.  That's a pretty large chunk of the people other
than you that have tried to hack on it so far.  

I honestly don't think changing peripheral names is going to cut it,
especially as the largest amount of confusion comes in the core code
which doesn't use as many of the functions which could get new names.

What would you think about running the _concept_ by Linus and akpm and
seeing if they have any insights?

-- Dave

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