> In message <Pine.HPP.3.91.980812140323.6780F-100000@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>, "Jon
> M.
> Taylor" writes:
> +-----
> | On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Kragen wrote:
> | > Remember, we're talking about defending against signals from a hostile
> | > root who wants to crash the video card.
> | No we are not. Where did hostility come into this? There are
> | many legitimate reasons why I might want to kill -9 the X server.
> +--->8
>
> Excuse me? You want to use the explicit kill-without-cleanup, then you
> complain that it didn't clean up after you and we need to hack the kernel to
> make up for it? What's wrong with a normal kill?
If X is hosed, a normal kill might not work. Or the kernel might
need to kill the X server process for OOM reasons or something else. I'd
still like to make the process go away without trouble in those
circumstances. If I have to kill -9 a normal process, it doesn't have to
free its own memory, does it? No, the kernel can do that for me. The
kernel cannot do that with the X server's video card manipulations.
> If your worry is traceback (which -9 won't help you with either) then edit
> XF86Config and turn on core dumps, then kill it with -4 or something. It'll
> fork, the child will dump core, then it cleans up.
Whee. Now I can trace through a 1MB+ core file, most of which is
not the code I am interested in. I still think debugging a kernel module
is easier.
Jon
--- 'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.' - Scientist G. Richard Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html