From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 18 22:40:26 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA04809 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 22:40:26 -0700 Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi (root@hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA04789 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 22:40:19 -0700 Received: from shadows.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA09304 (5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:40:14 +0200 Received: (hsu@localhost) by shadows.cs.hut.fi (8.6.10/8.6.10) id HAA03574; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:40:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 07:40:23 +0200 Message-Id: <199510190540.HAA03574@shadows.cs.hut.fi> From: Heikki Suonsivu To: Brian Tao Cc: Heikki Suonsivu , freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: indestructible processes won't die In-Reply-To: References: <199510182348.BAA03277@shadows.cs.hut.fi> Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Brian Tao writes: > > 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? I can't see any reason why there should be a possibility of unkillable processes in a system, no matter what IO it happens to be doing when it gets SIGKILL? -- Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@cs.hut.fi home +358-0-8031121 work -4513377 fax -4555276 riippu SN