lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SYSRQ accidents
Date
From

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.046 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site