Subject: Re: bug#41634: 'timeout' returning 124 and 133

From: Jonny Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 22:49:26 +0100

On 06/06/2020 00:37, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 2020-06-01 10:01, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> My mistake missing that. But could the 137 be listed explicitly?
>> ie.
>> "It may be  necessary  to  use the KILL (9) signal, since this signal cannot be caught, in which case the exit status is
>> 137 (128+9) rather than 124."
> 
> thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> I think this could still be improved:
> there is still the open question what happens when the KILL signal
> is sent either to timeout(1) or to COMMAND.
> The attached patch tries to clarify.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Berny
> 

Hello Berny

Great patch.

How about writing signal 9 by the name, ie $ kill -s KILL
likewise $ kill -s TERM

Cheers, Jonny