bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 14:53 +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Well DURATIONs of 0 were mentioned a little below that.
Hmm ok,... I see, since both use the symbol ... and you use
the word "associated"... one could have also understood it from the
beginning like that.
> -This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 which
> -disables the associated timeout.
> +This option has no effect if either the main @var{duration}
> +of the @command{timeout} command, or the @var{duration} specified
> +to this option, is 0.
Much better though IMO :-)
Thanks,
Chris.
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
On 12/10/2021 02:21, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Hey.
One more thing on this, since I've just read through:
https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html#timeout-invocation
That does IMO *not* document the behaviour:
--kill-after=duration says:
This option has no effect if timeout’s duration is 0 which disables
the associated timeout.
But that's about the timeout from the command itself (i.e. the 1st non-
option argument), isn't it?
So it means that if I have:
timeout --kill-after=10 0 ./command
There won't be a KILL after 10s, since the duration itself is 0.
Right. That is the behavior.
There's no word about that --kill-after=0 disabling the KILL in the
duration != 0 case as in:
timeout --kill-after=0 10 ./command
Well DURATIONs of 0 were mentioned a little below that.
But it it worth clarifying in the option description itself.
So I'll make the following change:
-This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 which
-disables the associated timeout.
+This option has no effect if either the main @var{duration}
+of the @command{timeout} command, or the @var{duration} specified
+to this option, is 0.
cheers,
Pádraig
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
Hey. One more thing on this, since I've just read through: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/timeout-invocation.html#timeout-invocation That does IMO *not* document the behaviour: --kill-after=duration says: >This option has no effect if timeout’s duration is 0 which disables >the associated timeout. But that's about the timeout from the command itself (i.e. the 1st non- option argument), isn't it? So it means that if I have: timeout --kill-after=10 0 ./command There won't be a KILL after 10s, since the duration itself is 0. There's no word about that --kill-after=0 disabling the KILL in the duration != 0 case as in: timeout --kill-after=0 10 ./command Cheers, Chris.
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
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
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
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? Also it may make "sense" if the value is configurable e.g. via some user input made before,... 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. Anyway,.. cheers, Chris.
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
tag 51128 notabug close 51128 stop On 11/10/2021 02:28, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hey. The timeout(1) manpage says: -k, --kill-after=DURATION also send a KILL signal if COMMAND is still running this long after the initial signal was sent My naive assumption would have been that --kill-after=0 means that a signal is sent immediately after the original one. Well that wouldn't be that useful functionality, as why not just send a single kill signal in that case. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. If intended, this should perhaps at least be mentioned in the manpage :-) It is intended that a 0 duration disables that timeout. It is mentioned in the full documentation at: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/timeout The man pages don't try to document every nuance. cheers, Pádraig.
bug#51128: timeout --kill-after=0 seems to not send a kill 0s after the initial signal
Hey. The timeout(1) manpage says: -k, --kill-after=DURATION also send a KILL signal if COMMAND is still running this long after the initial signal was sent My naive assumption would have been that --kill-after=0 means that a signal is sent immediately after the original one. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. If intended, this should perhaps at least be mentioned in the manpage :-) Cheers, Chris.
