From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 6 09:14:15 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA11809 for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:14:15 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA11802 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 09:14:08 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA18314; Mon, 6 Mar 95 10:07:17 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9503061707.AA18314@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: "Text file busy" with program not running anymore? To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 10:07:16 MST Cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199503052133.NAA00248@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 5, 95 01:33:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > No. Executed mapped files are a special case. I actually think that the > "text file busy" thing is generally a hack that should just be removed. I can > see no valid justification for preventing writes to executing files. If you > really don't want your executing process(es) to die, then unlinking the file > first is this the thing to do. Deovercommitting the image, since it is possible, is the thing to do. ENOMEM is the correct hack. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.