On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On 5 Sep, Bruce Evans wrote:
snprintf, strlen, vsnprintf, sysctl, sysctlbyname
I think all of these are safe in practice.
It also accesses some variables that are not safe to access in
a signal handler (non-auto ones that
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Also, printf() allocates memory for floating point, so if that
percentage is a floating point calculation, then you are in double
trouble, since you are not allowed to call malloc() in a signal
On 5 Sep, Bruce Evans wrote:
snprintf, strlen, vsnprintf, sysctl, sysctlbyname
I think all of these are safe in practice.
It also accesses some variables that are not safe to access in
a signal handler (non-auto ones that are not of type volatile
sig_atomic_t or are
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Also, printf() allocates memory for floating point, so if that
percentage is a floating point calculation, then you are in double
trouble, since you are not allowed to call malloc() in a signal
handler.
That's interesting... I can modify it a
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On 1 Sep, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
-On [20010901 19:00], Mikhail Teterin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished
in 0:43 (dump)
Looks nice. Would definately be an improvement.
I would like it. How
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 04:15:14PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
[...]
The SIGINFO handling seemed to be as simple as:
--- main.c2001/07/09 03:06:56 1.26
+++ main.c2001/09/02 19:58:21
@@ -274,2 +274,4 @@
+ if (signal(SIGINFO, SIG_IGN) != SIG_IGN)
+
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 10:36:45PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 00:39:22 +0200, Arne Dag Fidjestøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Could you please clarify your position on this issue? Is
setproctitle() the wrong way to do this, and if so, why?
I don't expect
On 3 Sep, Terry Lambert wrote:
I would like it. How often does it update the proctitle?
Whenever it outputs a line to the stderr -- I personally find no
regularity in that :(. SIGINFO handling is a different thing, though.
I'll look at that too. Thanks,
It would be nice to have
Ok, attached is the patch addding a function, which sets the proctitle
to the last output message and several calls to this function in places,
where it looked useful to me. May be, I added too many, and/or skipped
some...
Note, that I intentially did not put this functionality into the
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 21:55:09 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You mean dump should get a signal handler for SIGINFO to print/display
the current status of the application?
Yes! Just like in fsck, and for the same reasons.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 19:47:06 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:43 (dump)
SIGINFO! SIGINFO! SIGINFO!
You'd still need somewhere to put the status message; the dump process above
has no controlling
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 22:48:37 +0200, Arne Dag Fidjestøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You'd still need somewhere to put the status message; the dump process above
has no controlling terminal.
If it has no controlling terminal then it's not going to receive
ctty signals like SIGINFO.
-GAWollman
If it has no controlling terminal then it's not going to receive
ctty signals like SIGINFO.
Unless you send the signal manually.
But I agree, SIGINFO is not a good solution here :)
-adf
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the
-On [20010901 23:24], Arne Dag Fidjestøl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
You'd still need somewhere to put the status message; the dump process above
has no controlling terminal.
Putting it into syslog might be a bit too verbose for this?
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 23:08:48 +0200, Arne Dag Fidjestøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But I agree, SIGINFO is not a good solution here :)
I'm not sure who you're agreeing with, since I did not say that.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in
I like it. I se no problem.
Does this look like a good idea to anyone else?
79239 ?? I 0:00,89 dump 0ushf 1048576 0 - /dev/da0h (dump)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 23:08:48 +0200, Arne Dag Fidjestøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But I agree, SIGINFO is not a good solution here :)
I'm not sure who you're agreeing with, since I did not say that.
I apologize for the remark, however tongue-in-cheek it was intended.
Could you please
On 1 Sep, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
-On [20010901 19:00], Mikhail Teterin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:43 (dump)
Looks nice. Would definately be an improvement.
I would like it. How often does it update the
On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 00:39:22 +0200, Arne Dag Fidjestøl [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Could you please clarify your position on this issue? Is
setproctitle() the wrong way to do this, and if so, why?
I don't expect setproctitle() to be useful to me one way or the
other. SIGINFO, on the other
-On [20010901 19:00], Mikhail Teterin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:43 (dump)
Does anyone think, it is a bad idea? If no, I'll send-pr the patch...
For me, dump is driven by a remote amanda and its nice to know, when
it is
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 07:45:17PM +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
I like it. I se no problem.
Does this look like a good idea to anyone else?
79239 ?? I 0:00,89 dump 0ushf 1048576 0 - /dev/da0h (dump)
Nice idea IMO.
--
| / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands email:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 19:47:06 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:43 (dump)
SIGINFO! SIGINFO! SIGINFO!
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garrett
Wollman w
rites:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 19:47:06 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:4
3 (dump)
SIGINFO! SIGINFO! SIGINFO!
Much better idea!
Regards,
-On [20010901 21:48], Garrett Wollman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 19:47:06 +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
79240 ?? S 0:06,85 dump: /dev/da0h(0): 92.44% done, finished in 0:43 (dump)
SIGINFO! SIGINFO! SIGINFO!
Heh. :)
Let me elaborate your, erm,
24 matches
Mail list logo
