Hi Marcelo,
$subject says it all.
Please apply for 2.4.22-pre10. Thank you :)
ciao, Marc
On Gwe, 2003-08-01 at 11:40, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> $subject says it all.
>
> Please apply for 2.4.22-pre10. Thank you :)
>
> ciao, Marc
This is potentially private information. It shouldnt be reported
I disagree with the patch
On Friday 01 August 2003 14:09, Alan Cox wrote:
Hi Alan,
> This is potentially private information. It shouldnt be reported
> I disagree with the patch
well, it get logged to syslog(3) and dmesg(8). No normal user has access to
it, no?
ciao, Marc
On Friday 01 August 2003 14:26, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
Hi Alan,
> well, it get logged to syslog(3) and dmesg(8). No normal user has access to
> it, no?
forget it. Mainline kernels give the normal user access to dmesg :)
ciao, Marc
On Gwe, 2003-08-01 at 13:26, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 14:09, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> > This is potentially private information. It shouldnt be reported
> > I disagree with the patch
> well, it get logged to syslog(3) and dmesg(8). No normal user has access to
> it, no?
It may also end up on the console
Hi!
> > $subject says it all.
> >
> > Please apply for 2.4.22-pre10. Thank you :)
> >
> > ciao, Marc
>
> This is potentially private information. It shouldnt be reported
> I disagree with the patch
I agree it is not good enough for 2.4.X, but it looks good to me for
2.6. That information can be get by ps, right? If we decide it is not
okay to print process names to syslog, maybe oom killer should be
fixed, too?
Pavel
--
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
On Maw, 2003-08-05 at 11:59, Pavel Machek wrote:
> I agree it is not good enough for 2.4.X, but it looks good to me for
> 2.6. That information can be get by ps, right? If we decide it is not
> okay to print process names to syslog, maybe oom killer should be
> fixed, too?
SAK allows me to see what was running without having an account on the box
Hi!
> > I agree it is not good enough for 2.4.X, but it looks good to me for
> > 2.6. That information can be get by ps, right? If we decide it is not
> > okay to print process names to syslog, maybe oom killer should be
> > fixed, too?
>
> SAK allows me to see what was running without having an account on the box
Hmm, but current situation in such case is an admin with some dead processes and no idea
what went wrong :-(
--
Pavel
Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...