From: Mark Wielaard <email@example.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: frysk <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: "int pid" replaced with ProcessIdentifier
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 10:51 -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> I've pushed a low-level change so that frysk.sys's process code uses a
> ProcessIdentifier object instead of "int pid"s; there is one
> ProcessIdentifier per "pid". The change is slowly working its way
> through frysk.proc.live; it won't be taken further.
> The motivation is simple, while "int pid" looks small and efficient; it
> turns out that the code using it really needed an object (leaking
> something like <<new Integer(pid)>>) to either log or hash the pid.
> With a proper object both of these cases can be greatly simplified.
I looked of some of the changes here and it looks somewhat inefficient,
and very verbose, because it basically replaces everything that already
has a pid int with a call to ProcessIdentifierFactory.create(pid). A lot
of these int pids seems to come from Proc.getPid(), which in turn is a
wrapper for ProcId.hashCode() where the hashCode() of a ProcId is indeed
the int representation of the pid of the Proc.
So why not just use ProcId as process identifier for a Proc since that
is already bound to a Proc object? Or the other way around and do away
with ProcId and use ProcessIdentifier instead of ProcId. It seems
confusing to now have 3 ways to identify a process int pid, ProcId and
ProcessIdentifier (4 if you also count TaskId since I saw also code like
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-14 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-07 15:52 Andrew Cagney
2008-02-14 11:00 ` Mark Wielaard [this message]
2008-02-14 14:25 ` Andrew Cagney
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).