On 04-Nov-2003 David Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003, Igor Serikov wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Is it okay to have a condition that can be created by a mortal user and
>> then cannot be changed by the root? The waiting process cannot be killed
>> and would keep "waiting" till system reboo
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003, David Schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003, Igor Serikov wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Is it okay to have a condition that can be created by a mortal user and
> > then cannot be changed by the root? The waiting process cannot be killed
> > and would keep "waiting" till
David Schultz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003, Igor Serikov wrote:
David,
Is it okay to have a condition that can be created by a mortal user and
then cannot be changed by the root? The waiting process cannot be killed
and would keep "waiting" till system reboot.
Aah, I see. No, it's not
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003, Igor Serikov wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Is it okay to have a condition that can be created by a mortal user and
> then cannot be changed by the root? The waiting process cannot be killed
> and would keep "waiting" till system reboot.
Aah, I see. No, it's not okay that a non
David,
Is it okay to have a condition that can be created by a mortal user and
then cannot be changed by the root? The waiting process cannot be killed
and would keep "waiting" till system reboot.
I do not think it is a good idea to make ppwait state uninterruptible in
any case.
As to RFNOW
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003, Igor Serikov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Combining flags RFNOWAIT and RFPPWAIT in rfork(2) under 4.6-RELEASE
> makes the parent process sleeping on channel "ppwait" forever.
RFPPWAIT tells rfork() to wait for the child to exit, and RFNOWAIT
tells rfork() to detach the child su
Hello,
Combining flags RFNOWAIT and RFPPWAIT in rfork(2) under 4.6-RELEASE
makes the parent process sleeping on channel "ppwait" forever.
Regards,
Igor.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hacke
7 matches
Mail list logo