From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jul 25 09:36:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA11606 for current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA11597 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA00656 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707251636.JAA00656@austin.polstra.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Whats happened to ping? In-Reply-To: <199707251537.KAA28194@ns.tar.com> References: <199707251537.KAA28194@ns.tar.com> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:36:27 -0700 From: John Polstra Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > It seems that there have recently been changes to the sematics of > "ping -c N". Unless I'm mistaken, the old behavior was that "ping -c N" > meant try to send N packets. Now it means keep trying until N packets > are actually sent. > > The practical effect of this is that "ping -c N" might loop endlessly, > if, for example, the network is down and the sendto fails. Also, if ping isn't receiving any replies, it's impossible to kill it with a simple keyboard interrupt (SIGINT). I don't think that was the case before. -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth