On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:07:51AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> (Don't know about the HURD, but I don't consider that a reasonable
> choice until there's both a solid, stable HURD and a Debian or
> Debian-like distro for it, with a good selection of available packages.)
Hurd as OS seems pretty us
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:20:23PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
| On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 10:31, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:53:15PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
[found a 'D' process, can't kill it, short explanation]
| Although referring someone who is frustrated wit
On Thursday 13 February 2003 19:07, Craig Dickson wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Nicos Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.13.1257 +0100]:
> > > (For all those who don't know what /proc/kmem is: DON'T DO THIS!)
> >
> > For all those who'd have to do this on a regular basis: switch
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:32:21PM +0100, René Seindal wrote:
> With such a system there is really no way of dragging a recalcitrant
> process out of kernel mode. If it is stuck in there, it is stuck.
> Signals are registered, but not delivered, because the transition to
> user-space never happens
Craig Dickson wrote:
>
> martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > also sprach Nicos Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.13.1257 +0100]:
> > > (For all those who don't know what /proc/kmem is: DON'T DO THIS!)
> >
> > For all those who'd have to do this on a regular basis: switch to
> > a better OS.
>
> Such
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Nicos Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.13.1257 +0100]:
> > (For all those who don't know what /proc/kmem is: DON'T DO THIS!)
>
> For all those who'd have to do this on a regular basis: switch to
> a better OS.
Such as? This sort of unkillable process can e
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 10:31, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:53:15PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> | i have a process waiting for data on a device that doesn't exist
> | anymore (USB). now the process is listed as uninterruptibly sleeping.
> | i want to get rid of it, bu
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:31:12AM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:53:15PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> | i have a process waiting for data on a device that doesn't exist
> | anymore (USB). now the process is listed as uninterruptibly sleeping.
> | i want to get
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:53:15PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
| i have a process waiting for data on a device that doesn't exist
| anymore (USB). now the process is listed as uninterruptibly sleeping.
| i want to get rid of it, but kill -9 doesn't do anything, the process
| remains.
|
| what mu
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:17:06PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Nicos Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.13.1257 +0100]:
> > (For all those who don't know what /proc/kmem is: DON'T DO THIS!)
>
> For all those who'd have to do this on a regular basis: switch to
> a better OS.
or ge
also sprach Nicos Gollan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.13.1257 +0100]:
> (For all those who don't know what /proc/kmem is: DON'T DO THIS!)
For all those who'd have to do this on a regular basis: switch to
a better OS.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''`. martin
On Thursday 13 February 2003 00:04, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Jeffrey L . Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2003.02.12.2215 +0100]:
> > AFAIK, there is not any way to kill this short of rebooting.
>
> one more proof that Linux is actually flawed. going BSD...
> it seems that popularity of a s
René Seindal writes:
> There was no way of eliminating a process in an uninteruptable sleep. It
> might have changed in later BSDs, but it not only a Linux thing.
It hadn't as of BSDOS which I switched to Linux from.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 12:04:04AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Jeffrey L . Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.12.2215 +0100]:
> > AFAIK, there is not any way to kill this short of rebooting.
>
> one more proof that Linux is actually flawed. going BSD...
> it seems that popularity
also sprach Jeffrey L . Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.02.12.2215 +0100]:
> AFAIK, there is not any way to kill this short of rebooting.
one more proof that Linux is actually flawed. going BSD...
it seems that popularity of a software is indirectly proportional to
its correctness. oh my lord.
-
Quoting martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> i have a process waiting for data on a device that doesn't exist
> anymore (USB). now the process is listed as uninterruptibly sleeping.
> i want to get rid of it, but kill -9 doesn't do anything, the process
> remains.
>
> what must i do to kill this
16 matches
Mail list logo
