Re: [9fans] double lock in proc.c

This was many years ago (when my now-white beard was still merely grey). Not worth going back to reconstruct the arguments, but I'll send Giacomo and Nemo a copy of my proc.c to examine for themselves. I'd also be interested by your copy if proc.c. Thanks. -- David du Colombier

Re: [9fans] double lock in proc.c

I'm not convinced that I recall not being convinced ... :) Essentially I changed the order of lock acquire/release so that the canlock() loop in proc.c:/^postnote could be eliminated. Not significant for performance, but it seemed more elegant and I think it also avoided looking at any shared

Re: [9fans] Discord community for Plan 9

agreed. welcome to the mailing list.

Re: [9fans] Killing another user's process

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 at 10:14 Charles Forsyth wrote: > > lower case kill restricts the list to processes of the invoking user > initial cap Kill doesn't do that. Apologies both - didn't read Skip's answer properly. I saw kill where I should have seen Kill. > for lower

Re: [9fans] Killing another user's process

lower case kill restricts the list to processes of the invoking user initial cap Kill doesn't do that. for lower case kill, you can @{rfork n; echo -n none >/tmp/none && bind /tmp/none /dev/user && kill tftpd} you wouldn't normally of course but aspects of that command might be instructive On 25

Re: [9fans] Killing another user's process

Thanks, Skip. I thought that ought to work, however 'kill tftpd' doesn't give any output. (I can kill other processes) I think maybe I have misunderstood the host owner part. If I do a plain install (of 9front, actually) from the CD and log in as glenda, am I not the host owner? Thanks, Pete On