Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: SYSRQ accidents | Date | Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:13:44 +0100 | From | David Woodhouse <> |
| |
paradox@maine.rr.com said: > Am I the first one to aim for "k" and accidently hit "l" ? eh? I just > wanted to saK my current TTY, not destroy my system!!!
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
| |