Talk:Magic SysRq key

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 RSEIUB
2 REISUB
3 Explanation of REISUB commands
4 Raising Skinny Elephants Is Utterly Boring
5 Enabling SysRq

[edit] RSEIUB

I readded the paragraph on RSEIUB, as there is a redirection from that acronym to this article and people searching for RSEIUB might not understand the relation to SysRq without it. (By the way: Why is it "and an incorrect one as well"?) --84.143.39.40 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] REISUB

It's considered safer to sync after killing the processes so it might make sense to rewrite the mnemonic to Raising Elephants Is So Utterly Boring.

Perhaps one might even keep the "Skinny" part in place.

No changes made yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.94.224.254 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

'It's considered safer'? Who considers it safer? Why would when you sync the disk matter? I think we need someone authoritative on this to say which one is better (if either) and why.--Cogburnd02 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no authoritative reference, but if you sync before killing all processes, wouldn't they have a chance to queue more data to be written, which may be only partially written by the time the Unmount command is received? --Khumba 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... someone should ask a kernel developer which is best 75.70.81.208 11:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Processes can (and do) handle the SIGTERM signal. It's reasonable that a process that is asked to terminate gracefully will likely write log data (which might very well get cached). On the other hand, SIGKILL can't be handled, so doing a sync and then sending SIGKILL to all processes is safe. Andareed (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of REISUB commands

When the article explains the actions taken by each command: REISUB, I is esplained kills all processes (except init), but before that its function is l sends the SIGKILL signal to all processes, including init., so, which one is right? the one that kills init or the one that doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.237.106 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

REISUB is at fault here. I removed it before, as it contradicts authoritative sources (the sysrq help file in the Linux sources), but it appears it was added again. I don't believe it appears in any reliable source. --Constantine 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raising Skinny Elephants Is Utterly Boring

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2007)

"Raising Skinny Elephants Is Utterly Boring" redirects here, but is not explained in the article. I'm curious about what it means. -- Beland 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See this revision. -- intgr [talk] 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enabling SysRq

I think this info should have it's own section, or at the very least remain in 'Command line access and configuration' but be placed at the beginning and have the section renamed 'Configuration and command line access'. It just makes more sense to explain how to enable the feature before explaining advanced features which require the feature to already be activated. If there is agreement I'm happy to make the changes. -- (Kinslayer11 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

In my opinion this article has already crossed the "Wikipedia is not a manual" line, and should be trimmed rather than expanded. I believe this content is more appropriate on some Linux-oriented wiki like HowtoForge or others. -- intgr [talk] 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)