Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:37:06 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER Message-ID: <199804291637.JAA09220@pau-amma.whistle.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:16:51 -0400 (EDT) >From: "David E. Cross" <dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu> >the Kernel would then treat processes as follows: >1) Processes that did not have SIGDANGER handled would be the first to be >killed (just sent a SIGKILL). I'm probably exposing my ignorance here, but it seems to me that SIGKILL really ought to be a last resort.... Since it can't be caught, it provides absolutely no way for such a process to do any cleanup at all. On a related note, I'm wondering if memory allocation is the only resource to which this sort of strategy ought to apply: I don't think of any that are as critical, just now, but I'm not entirely convinced that the list (of resources) should contain only a single entry.... david -- David Wolfskill dhw@whistle.com (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 401-0168 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804291637.JAA09220>