regards
vinny
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, you wrote:
> "A month of sundays ago vinny wrote:"
> > The segfault was something that I defintely expected. It should and did
> > on my system. But when a program takes up too many resources the kernel is
> > supposed to kill it right?. Then why did the kernel fail to do so in the second
>
> No ... it's supposed to kill _something_. That may or may not be your
> program.
>
>
> > Apart from that how did the ext2 fs got corrupted becuase of a memory
> > leak. I defintely did not expect that. It was a deliberate code to see how
> > linux handles it , but fs corruption was some thing that blew the hell out of
> > me. I ran fsck to fix it , but fsck did not detect any inconsistencies. So I
>
> That's because there weren't any!
>
> > had to reinstall linux again.
>
> That simply indicates that you don't know what you are doing. If you
> cannot detect a 500MB core file sitting at the directory you launched
> your program from (or elsewhere) nobody is going to place any credence
> in what you say.
>
> >
> > regards
> >
> > vinny
> >
> > >
> > > it probably seg faulted because your recursive
> > > program blew up its stack. it then dumped core,
> > > including all the memory you allocated.
>
> Indeed! Why have you ignored this very sane comment?
>
> Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/