On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:01 AM, Bhaskar, KS wrote:
Again, this seems consistent with the semantics of the JOB
command. I don't see where killing a process with SIGKILL (9)
drops you back to the direct mode.
Neither do I (directly). But it still raises the question of whether
an application can be written in such a way that an unrecoverable
error could drop a user into programmer mode.
To me, what is interesting is that killing the process owning the
lock doesn't allow the process waiting for the lock to eventually
get the lock, and you have to hit ^C. In GT.M, the process waiting
for the lock eventually gets the lock, as in the example below.
Yeah...I noticed that. I suspect the issue is one of how locks are
maintained. If it is done at the kernel level, then (e.g., lockf) the
locks should be freed. But if they are maintained in application
code, then there could be a problem.
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Einstein was a giant. He had his head in the clouds and his feet on
the ground."
--Richard P. Feynman
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
