--VRi3alwYRybC0qbn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:29:49AM +0200, Mindaugas R. wrote:
> Hello,
> as discussed with Andrew (ad@), l_priority and l_usrpri names in struct l=
wp
> are not very suitable and he suggested to rename l_priority to l_epriority
> ("effective priority") and l_usrpri to l_priority. These changes would go=
 to
> yamt-idlelwp branch. Any comments?

Don't get me wrong:  I'm all for better code readability.  But re-using
a name for a different field might be very confusing for anyone
maintaining code that uses that field.  That's the kind of failure I'd
really not want to debug myself.

--=20
Quentin Garnier - cube@cubidou.net - cube@NetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.

--VRi3alwYRybC0qbn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBRdjjG9goQloHrPnoAQKLaggAlDlVVldDxwFA03/GIcXeVRbIgFjdOgao
VNKad7YutN+5YhIO5B4sUHU8r7g07QluTHR6wM856noPT0c/sjLYp/SSe9Da775K
J85rfWRKxYNgb+LD+iEtx1LZqSrduyQSBaJcx0wo3Ncv6Ad/CvPvIxEnjDyzwE8C
1ACwj0bfy/xsbjCORYcaB9Klsr7nocpSFM52eFOZIRK19oDn9dkna5xNkeb4SXVD
ynTNCe6HEd/uEh8jdJypo5UpM4j8nO7+iZ5eEkPBFdi6IKnLEJjFEZ19Cgs3FCbB
oRmzO1a9PLTW3ab5y1xv1AHItxyHaOgjqFXCZeTK1ywZ9e6UEhN4Gw==
=nLza
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--VRi3alwYRybC0qbn--