Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Richard A Downing wrote: > > >>Why not use 'rpc.nfsd -- 0'? This tells the kernel [nfsd] threads to >>cease and desist - well it actually says to kernel that you want zero of >>them. > > > Interesting. I also checked RH's solution and they do a kill with the > default signal: <snip> > Although Richard's technique is interesting, I prefer the well known > kill method. However, any method that works reliably is OK with me.
Not wishing to sow dissent in the ranks, but why do you prefer the kill method? My method works reliably, and seems to be the documented method by which the userland tells the kernel module nfsd.o how many [nfsd] threads to run. Check out 'man rpc.nfsd'. Impudent possibly, but I think using kill is plain wrong (even if RH do it). Kill is not, je pense, intended to send signals to kernel processes. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
