From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] writeback: harmonize writeback threads and tasks - 3
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:33:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20100712153316.GA26429@infradead.org>
References: <1278920994-2402-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
 <1278920994-2402-5-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:59500 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751592Ab0GLPdS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:33:18 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1278920994-2402-5-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:49:54AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
> 
> The write-back code mixes words "thread" and "task" for the
> same things - this is not a problem, but this is still an
> inconsistency which makes it a bit difficult to read the code.
> It is better to use term "thread" consistently everywhere.
> 
> This patch amends commentaries and makes them refer the forker thread and the
> write-back threads as "threads", not "tasks".

A convention I tend to use and I've seen in various places is to always
use _task for the storage of the task_struct pointer, and thread
everywhere else.  This especially helps with having foo_thread for the
actual thread and foo_task for a global variable keeping the
task_struct pointer.