it's all is very good, but what can you say about to fix problem with rpc.lockd ???
2006/8/29, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 2006-Aug-28 13:23:30 +0000, Michael Abbott wrote: >I think there is a case to be made for special casing SIGKILL, but in a >sense it's not so much the fate of the process receiving the SIGKILL that >counts: after all, having sent -9 I know that it will never process again. Currently, if you send SIGKILL, the process will never enter userland again. Going further, so that if you send a process SIGKILL, it will always terminate immediately is significantly more difficult. In the normal case, a process is sleeping on some condition with PCATCH specified. If the process receives a signal, sleep(9) will return ERESTART or EINTR and the code has to then arrange to return back to userland (which will cause the signal to be handled as per sigaction(2) and the processes signal handlers). In some cases, it may be inconvenient to unwind back to userland from a particular point so PCATCH isn't specified on the sleep. -- Peter Jeremy
_______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
