GNU bug report logs - #41634
'timeout' returning 124 and 133

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Jonny Grant <jg <at> jguk.org>
To: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
Cc: 41634-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#41634: 'timeout' returning 124 and 133
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:53:53 +0100

On 20/07/2020 21:04, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 2020-07-05 12:53, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> Your patch looks great.
> 
> Thanks, pushed (with the minor tweak mentioned below) at:
>   https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=49bd08aea
> 
>> Is it worth clarifying that --kill-after=0s would send the KILL signal immediately after TERM?
>> $ timeout --kill-after=0s 2s du -h
> 
> As the signal handler for the regular signal (TERM) does probably not have
> enough time to do anything before being KILLed, this use case would better
> be written as:
> 
>   $ timeout -s KILL 2s du -h
> 
> Not sure this is worth an extra explanation.
> 
>> Is it worth rejecting this? At the moment the -k is just ignored.
>> $ timeout -k 2s 0s du -h
> 
> Hmm, rejecting is a bit harsh.  The question is if this is really
> a problem for the users?  I mean once a user knows there is a -k
> option, I would expect that she has read the documentation about
> how to use it.
> It is mentioned both in the Texinfo manual and in the --help output:
> 
>   A duration of 0 disables the associated timeout.
> 
> I squashed in the following little change:
> 
>   -This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 and therefore
>   +This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 which
>    disables the associated timeout.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Berny

Looks great!
Jonny

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.