Subject: Re: bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal

From: Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 21:29:58 +0100

On 11/10/2021 16:59, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-10-11 at 16:49 +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Well that wouldn't be that useful functionality,
>> as why not just send a single kill signal in that case.
> 
> Well with the same argumentation one could say that timeout 0 command
> doesn’t execute the command at all, since why should one call it with a
> timeout, when there's anyway none?

It's more consistent for a duration of 0 to disable the associated timeout.

> Also it may make "sense" if the value is configurable e.g. via some
> user input made before,...

Exactly. A propagated user setting of 0 should be interpreted as
disabling the timeouts rather than the command itself,
as timing out immediately is not useful functionality.

> And in my opinion, since this behaviour is really quite unexpected
> (disabling an option, though explicitly setting it), it should at least
> also be mentioned in the manpage, too.

The man page mentions this for DURATION (and thus for both timeouts mentioned above):
"A duration of 0 disables the associated timeout"

thanks,
Pádraig