Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:04:20 -0500 From: Ashley Penney <ashp@unloved.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@gosset.maths.tcd.ie> Cc: ashp@FreeBSD.org, in@amalea.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/27262: process won't be terminated after CPUTIME exceeded Message-ID: <20020117150420.A33534@labyrinth.cs.rogers.wave.ca> In-Reply-To: <20020117110646.GA679@gosset.maths.tcd.ie>; from dwmalone@gosset.maths.tcd.ie on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:06:46AM %2B0000 References: <200201170331.g0H3VLS04983@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020117110646.GA679@gosset.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:06:46AM +0000, David Malone said: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:31:21PM -0800, ashp@FreeBSD.org wrote: > > Synopsis: process won't be terminated after CPUTIME exceeded > > > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > > State-Changed-By: ashp > > State-Changed-When: Wed Jan 16 19:30:49 PST 2002 > > State-Changed-Why: > > This is not a bug, this is a feature. The functionality is disabled under > > -CURRENT for a reason, as pointed out by bde. > > None the less, it is a problem which needs to be addressed before 5.0 > is released. It may be wise to leave these open so that we remember > to fix them. I've moved it to analyzed so that it stays open, but the fact that it's been read/analyzed is taken into account. Think that's ok, or should it be bumped all the way to open? [I think we should use analyzed more in these situations, personally..] -- When Bruce Evans commits something one can virtually rest assured that it has been throughly tested ever since he originally wrote it in 1974 and that several satelites and ICBMs wouldn't work and the cold war would not have ended without that patch. -- Poul-Henning. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020117150420.A33534>