On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > Would this complexity /really/ be worth it for the twice-yearly OOM > situation? the only reason i suggested this was the init=/bin/bash, 4MB RAM, no swap emergency-bootup case. We must not kill init in that case - if the current code doesnt then great and none of this is needed. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- [RFC] New ideas for the OOM handler Byron Stanoszek
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler john slee
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Paul Jakma
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Rik van Riel
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler David Ford