I was much happier when SysRq-L didn't kill the system, and I could still sync
and unmount the filesystems afterwards.
I still don't understand exactly why this behaviour was changed - someone
suggested that it was because with init dead, orphaned processes couldn't be
assigned to be children of init.
I don't see why that means we have to kill the kernel completely though, rather
than just assigning them to the next running pid.
If I was aware of the reasoning, I'd put together a patch which did the above.
But as nobody has documented the reason for the change, even upon being asked,
I don't know whether it's worth it.
So could I repeat my question: Why was the behaviour of the kernel changed?
And ask another: If I produce a patch which fixes it again, so that orphaned
processes will become children of the process with the lowest PID, will such
patch be accepted?
---- ---- ----
David Woodhouse David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com Office: (+44) 1223 812896
Project Leader, Process Information Systems Mobile: (+44) 976 658355
Axiom (Cambridge) Ltd., Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge, CB5 0NA, UK.
finger dwmw2@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk for PGP key.
-
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