marking normal sleep identifiers as such.

[Jeff Roberson]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>
> Now that we have a bunch of kernel threads which participate in the
> running of the system, I find that it is a tad more time consuming
> to figure out what the state of a crashed or hung system is.
>
> So I was wondering if we should instigate a simple convention for
> the sleep identifiers to make it easier to spot, or rather: ignore,
> kthreads which are in their normal idle position.
>
> Since thread names are longer than the space we have in ps(1) output
> using the thread name is not feasible solution.
>
> I notice that the interrupt threads all seem to sleep on "-", and
> all things considered, I like that.
>
> Should we adopt that as our convention ?

I like the idea of having a convention.  I think most any consistent
identifier will do.  I vote yes.

Cheers,
Jeff