This was many years ago (when my now-white beard was still merely grey).
Not worth going back to reconstruct the arguments, but I'll send Giacomo
and Nemo a copy of my proc.c to examine for themselves.
I'd also be interested by your copy if proc.c.
Thanks.
--
David du Colombier
I'm not convinced that I recall not being convinced ... :)
Essentially I changed the order of lock acquire/release so that the
canlock() loop in proc.c:/^postnote could be eliminated. Not significant
for performance, but it seemed more elegant and I think it also avoided
looking at any shared dat
agreed. welcome to the mailing list.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 at 10:14 Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> lower case kill restricts the list to processes of the invoking user
> initial cap Kill doesn't do that.
Apologies both - didn't read Skip's answer properly. I saw kill where
I should have seen Kill.
> for lower case kill, you can @{rfork n;
lower case kill restricts the list to processes of the invoking user
initial cap Kill doesn't do that.
for lower case kill, you can @{rfork n; echo -n none >/tmp/none && bind
/tmp/none /dev/user && kill tftpd}
you wouldn't normally of course but aspects of that command might be
instructive
On 25 J
Thanks, Skip.
I thought that ought to work, however 'kill tftpd' doesn't give any
output. (I can kill other processes)
I think maybe I have misunderstood the host owner part. If I do a
plain install (of 9front, actually) from the CD and log in as glenda,
am I not the host owner?
Thanks,
Pete
On M