Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:17:54 +0200 From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> To: jhell <jhell@dataix.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [patch] pkill verbose option Message-ID: <a0777e081002031317o56da71ebmadc34ed4411103a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002031257280.41547@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny> References: <a0777e081002030700l53d9cae2v74a181315ed55277@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002031246160.37629@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002031257280.41547@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yeah - I wasn't sure what else to use. Does the -V work as intended? Is this a worthwhile patch? IMHO the biggest problem with unix system commands is the lack of constancy of the flags. On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:58 PM, jhell <jhell@dataix.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:52, jhell@ wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:00, eitanadlerlist@ wrote: >> >>> I added an option to pkill which lists what processes it kills and what >>> signal is sent. If no signals are sent it prints out the same message >>> killall does. >>> >>> >> Unfortunately that patch works but has unintended operation that can be >> seen with the following. >> >> sleep 1000 & >> pkill sleep >> No matching processes belonging to you were found >> [1]+ Terminated: 15 sleep 10000 >> >> It then kills sleep and still prints no processes belong to you message. >> >> Now pkill -v sleep on my system actually causes my Xserver to exit with a >> unexpected signal 15. >> >> Without the patches it works as it should... >> >> Overhead endured. >> >> >> > Ugh! ignore the pkill -v comment. Should have noticed the -V instead. > > > -- > > jhell > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a0777e081002031317o56da71ebmadc34ed4411103a>