From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 29 12:11:04 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB442F9B; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:11:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yerenkow@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94124637; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mc17so9114834pbc.32 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:11:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fZhQf8xGG2bCQutx/KvIGvPTHWufCXYB05kHxEWT/nk=; b=zZ2xHn/pbvxebYx7MvyV2bqEQvZFISWOXz2uhd/Y6D0AWdtcIlElY4RgOJq4QCxUNw NCx5SQTTTE7mEE/RheNyV8crc9cRwQev491dvD36fV1Uly078DOKc21c4vUr00whiiSX UHSGKDvW8Gx97ofRynGLC3rx7kgJGqMdftXiS/KESkjxPnUiB+E4AmV9CqJjd4+qUKGY nVM5cn3diRz9mMZmN1D3/sNBwpbNxu9AVaZYbI+HgbtLE+7eh3hI0+0sLE/ZQOg9mmJm ckbGvjlwJOtJYncZarcddlqB9U1Rl3Pr7+Asy+qnS4jiQZ3vcqGBxXZHDKY5OIj00Z8/ KGUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.67.5.8 with SMTP id ci8mr3101468pad.48.1369829464418; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.239.103 with HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2013 05:11:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130528230140.A5B396F448@smtp.hushmail.com> <51A541B5.3010905@gmail.com> <1369801479.2670.YahooMailNeo@web190706.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:11:04 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BSD sleep From: Alexander Yerenkow To: Jason Birch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:11:04 -0000 I'm just saying that there's pretty space for discussion. If someone raised this now, why not discuss it now. > If you sleep one hour, do you sleep one hour from now or one hour from the system clock which may change in the next hour? If it's the system clock, you may sleep for ten minutes or ten hours. If you need to sleep for 3600 seconds, that's simple and understandable. How about rephrase it: > If you sleep 3600 seconds, do you sleep 3600 seconds from now or 3600 seconds from the system clock which may change in the next hour? If it's the system clock, you may sleep for ten minutes or ten hours. How "way of specifying period" changing the fact that "internal minimal unit of sleep" is not clearly specified in manpage? Also, there no info on how DST/ ntp time changes affects of running sleeps. I don't see right now how new flag (which currently if specified makes `sleep` exit with help), could break something, but I see that this is could be useful in some cases. This also raise question what sleep should do if something specified incorrectly, like sleep 2h30m30m , or 1h1h or else. And also if any changes would be accepted, this should be specified in manpage (that one about `m` as month). About non-portable feature with non-integers, it was just side observation. -- Regards, Alexander Yerenkow