Re: kill (0, SIGSTOP) is freezing the system (was: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc)

2013-07-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
Justus Winter, le Fri 26 Jul 2013 13:24:49 +0200, a écrit : I'm not sure about how important it is not to freeze anyone of them, but at least procfs must not be stopped b/c killall5 wants to iterate over /proc. And /proc might not even be started yet, so exec need to be

Re: kill (0, SIGSTOP) is freezing the system (was: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc)

2013-07-26 Thread Justus Winter
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2013-07-24 15:15:52) Justus Winter, le Wed 24 Jul 2013 08:30:52 +0200, a écrit : the processes below 100 that are not marked as essential by Guillems patch are: exec, That one should be easy. Yes, /hurd/init can mark it as essential. /sbin/init,

kill (0, SIGSTOP) is freezing the system (was: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc)

2013-07-24 Thread Justus Winter
Hi, [PATCH 1/7] proc: add proc_mark_essential server code [PATCH 2/7] hurd: add proc_mark_essential [PATCH 3/7] init: Mark auth, proc and fs servers as essential This is a refreshed but otherwise unmodified version of Guillems patch series presented here:

Re: kill (0, SIGSTOP) is freezing the system (was: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc)

2013-07-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
Justus Winter, le Wed 24 Jul 2013 08:30:52 +0200, a écrit : the processes below 100 that are not marked as essential by Guillems patch are: exec, That one should be easy. /sbin/init, term, pflocal, mach-defpager, null, procfs, proxy-defpager, tmpfs, storeio Most of which are

Re: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc

2013-07-15 Thread Samuel Thibault
Justus Winter, le Tue 25 Jun 2013 17:47:49 +0200, a écrit : This special interface they both use and the fact that init does lot's of process related things might be an indication that the seperation does more harm than good. It seems to make the code more complex, and fixing the issue of

Re: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc

2013-07-15 Thread Roland McGrath
They are separate because they do different things. This doesn't seem like it should need a lot of justification to Hurd hackers. If you want to roll things together just because you always run them both, maybe you should be hacking on a monolithic kernel instead.

Re: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc

2013-07-15 Thread Samuel Thibault
Roland McGrath, le Mon 15 Jul 2013 09:44:52 -0700, a écrit : They are separate because they do different things. This doesn't seem like it should need a lot of justification to Hurd hackers. If you want to roll things together just because you always run them both, That's not what he said.

Re: /hurd/init and /hurd/proc

2013-07-15 Thread Roland McGrath
That's not what he said. He said there is a lot of information propagated from init to proc, and thus the separation is questionable. Are you talking about bootstrap, or what?

/hurd/init and /hurd/proc

2013-06-25 Thread Justus Winter
in the last few days, I'm confident that I could implement either option. But first I'd like to suggest a third. 3) /hurd/init could be merged into the proc server. /hurd/init does lot's of process related stuff, like starting essential servers (like the proc server, and then *later* correcting