From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 23:40:08 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B75BC88D; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:40:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmta1.delivery6.ore.mailhop.org (pmta1.delivery6.ore.mailhop.org [54.149.206.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91232BD4; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:40:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.ore.mailhop.org (172.31.36.112) by pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org id hrabda20r84p; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:59:46 +0000 (envelope-from ) Received: from [73.34.117.227] (helo=ilsoft.org) by smtp4.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YLJmW-0000gi-5z; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:59:48 +0000 Received: from revolution.hippie.lan (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by ilsoft.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1AMxmkr084394; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:59:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP X-Originating-IP: 73.34.117.227 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1++dAIlgehlwO78QejfVn+G Message-ID: <1423609188.80968.29.camel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nagios vs w/uptime From: Ian Lepore To: Brooks Davis Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:59:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150210225555.GC75249@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <54DA617A.4090309@wemm.org> <4A76A371-B573-4E62-BE78-94944963FFD0@freebsd.org> <1423603964.80968.28.camel@freebsd.org> <20150210225555.GC75249@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.8 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current Current , Michael Gmelin , Peter Wemm , Marcel Moolenaar X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:40:08 -0000 On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:55 +0000, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > >> > > > >> [Moving to current@] > > > >> > > > >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Surprises: > > > >>> * nagios doesn't like w / uptime anymore. libxo perhaps? > > > >> [...] > > > > > > Adding xo_finish() to w.c line 268 just right before exit(0); fixes that issue (I don't know libxo well enough to say if this is the proper fix or just a workaround, but it seems logical to me). > > > > > > > I wonder if that implies that any non-normal exit from a program that > > has been xo'd will result in the loss of output that would not have been > > lost before the xo changes? That could lead to all kinds of subtle > > failures of existing scripts and apps. > > I suspect that for most programs with more than a few exit points, > adding an atexit() registration to call xo_finish() is going to be a > good odea. > I assume there is some sort of xo_start() call if there's an xo_finish(), so the library could do that for itself? -- Ian