From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 18 16:51:26 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA02273 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:51:26 -0700 Received: from io.org (root@io.org [142.77.70.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA02263 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:51:22 -0700 Received: from flinch.io.org (flinch.io.org [198.133.36.153]) by io.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA20016; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:51:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: Heikki Suonsivu cc: freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: indestructible processes won't die In-Reply-To: <199510182348.BAA03277@shadows.cs.hut.fi> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Oct 1995, Heikki Suonsivu wrote: > > Please, no waste of time to implement kludges just to get a workaround > for an obvious bug. Using that time to fix the bug instead would be > much more useful. kill -9 should kill the process. If the process is > trying to output something somewhere, the output is lost or something > else is done with it, but the process is killed. That is the whole > meaning of SIGKILL, isn't it, to kill, with no excuses? And if the process is in disk wait? -- Brian Tao System Administrator, Internex Online Inc. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"