On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:41:57 +1100
Giles Lean <giles@nemeton.com.au> wrote:

> 
> > Perhaps we need a new syscall to *really* kill a process, even if it's
> > in a state where normal signal delivery does not happen.
> 
> Urk -- when processes are unkillable there's a reason.  The reason is
> sometimes hardware and sometimes a kernel bug.  Neither will be fixed

Hardware problems should be managed by the kernel. For example, if a media
fails repeatly (like a wrong CD or a floppy), the kernel should be able to
stop the read/write, send an error signal to the requesting process and
reset the drive. What I mean is that the kernel should detect these error
conditions and stop the processes. Isn't it?

Regards

-- 
Julio Merino (http://jmmv.dyndns.org/) <jmmv@menta.net>