Dave Howorth wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 19:58:44 +0100 Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote:
Sorry, I still do not understand why a user process such as mc can not be destroyed on order. No excuses.
A user process can enter kernel mode - this one did, and then disabled interrupts. I.e. it has to complete.
Disabled interrupts? But all the processes were working, only this one was stuck. My training said that when interrupts were disabled, noone got access to them.
I don't understand a word of that ?
You have one process which disabled interrupts whilst in some bit of kernel code, maybe a driver, who knows. Disabling interrupts just means a bit of code that must complete without any asynchronous calls happening. Most probably to guarantee data integrity. It's perfectly normal.
Right, but kernel code that suspends interrupts is not supposed to persist indefinitely and should have been QAd by kernel devs, no?
No and maybe, in that order :-) It _is_ supposed to suspend indefinitely, but usually not for very long. (in the order of microseconds probably). Yes, it probably has been QAed and shown to work fine.
Plus as Carlos says, since when has a network connection disappearing been unexpected and have any effect on data integrity?
A network filesystem mount ? I have a number of systems running with root on NFS, root is always mounted with "hard,intr". That means "wait forever" in the case of loss of the connection. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.6°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org