Richard A Downing wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Not wishing to sow dissent in the ranks, but why do you prefer the kill > method?
Because I'm old and set in my ways. :) My method works reliably, and seems to be the documented method > by which the userland tells the kernel module nfsd.o how many [nfsd] > threads to run. Check out 'man rpc.nfsd'. I just stated a personal preference. I'm OK with your method for the book. > Impudent possibly, but I think using kill is plain wrong (even if RH do > it). Kill is not, je pense, intended to send signals to kernel processes. Here I disagree. The kill command is misnamed. It really should be named 'signal'. In general, a signal is valid for processes running in either kernel space or user space. OTOH, I just tool a look at the source (what a concept :) ) and rpc.nfsd sets the number of processes in /proc makes a syscall to the kernel to make it happen. After reviewing this, I will have to admit that your method seems to be the most technically correct. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
