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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers