On 5/24/05, Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@...> wrote:
> On Sunday 22 May 2005 08:49, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 06:17:48PM +1200, Cliff Pratt wrote:
> > > kill 1224 and kill -9 1224 both return without affecting the task.
> > If kill -9, *as root*, does not kill a process, you have hit a
> > kernel bug. Period. You should probably reboot.
> 2.6.10 has indeed a kernel bug in this situation. You should probably upd=
> the host to 2.6.11.
> However, kill -9 is not sufficient if you don't do, after, a kill -CONT.
> Definitely... Somebody argued it's a bug but Linux works this way, and I'=
> not in the standards world.
Ah! Thanks. I stumbled on that solution in the end. Nice to have it