Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:31:32 + Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200 > Benny Lofgren wrote: > > > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been > > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid > > I'm killing too *much*... > > Most of the time, the regex matching makes it usable. I'd rather see > that expanded than case sensitivity. > Of course you can use ps -auxww | egrep | cut etc. etc. when needed, instead of pgrep but that sort of defies the point of pgrep.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:41:16 -0500 Chris Bennett wrote: > I would like a verbose option where I can be notified if nothing matched. /usr/bin/pgrep asxbabsjkcnjklcneo || /bin/echo "Nout matched"
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:31:32PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200 > Benny Lofgren wrote: > > > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been > > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid > > I'm killing too *much*... > > Most of the time, the regex matching makes it usable. I'd rather see > that expanded than case sensitivity. > I would like a verbose option where I can be notified if nothing matched. I far prefer to use pkill over kill. For example, killing off many gnashes! But I always want success when I use it. I dislike having to verify afterward manually my 2 cents.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200 Benny Lofgren wrote: > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid > I'm killing too *much*... Most of the time, the regex matching makes it usable. I'd rather see that expanded than case sensitivity.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
2011/6/12 Philip Guenther > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst > wrote: > > Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm > > each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled > > after rm. > > "Confirm each kill"? Ah, that's the option to follow up each kill > with a SIGKILL between the fds, right? > > More like "sending in a team and streaming it live to the president"-style "confirm each kill". =) -- To our sweethearts and wives. May they never meet. -- 19th century toast
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 07:33:51PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > > Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm > > each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled > > after rm. > > "Confirm each kill"? Ah, that's the option to follow up each kill > with a SIGKILL between the fds, right? > > > Philip Guenther Here with the process police, we like to kill by number. -Otto PS: if you don't get the reference you could listen to the guest performance of Sting performing "Murder by Numbers" with Frank Zappa's band on the "Broadway the Hard Way" album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToReX88lzkk That'll end this sunday's diversion.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm > each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled > after rm. "Confirm each kill"? Ah, that's the option to follow up each kill with a SIGKILL between the fds, right? Philip Guenther
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Benny Lofgren wrote: >> Hmmm. Two of (arguably) the four best known BSD distributions have it. >> The idea of -i meaning case insensitivity is there already in other (1) >> commands, so I'd say it makes sense to add. >> >> From a practical standpoint, I'm all for it. I've missed killing things >> because of this. > > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid > I'm killing too *much*... Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled after rm.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
Wrong thread :( On 11 June 2011 19:24, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > The cleaner sometimes accidentaly pushes the power button of one of my > machines. > > So +1.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
The cleaner sometimes accidentaly pushes the power button of one of my machines. So +1.
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On 2011-06-11 23.07, STeve Andre' wrote: >> NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@). >> FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later. >> procps.cvs.sourceforge.net (used e.g. in Debian) does not have -i. >> OpenSolaris does not have -i. >> >> So I'd say we shouldn't add it. >> >> It is not terribly useful; hopefully, you at least know >> how the processes you are searching for are called. >> Even if not, you can use ps ax | grep -i to find out, >> then use the exact name you found for pkill. >> Personally, i never felt a need for pkill -i, >> although i'm using pkill a lot. >> It is not universal, so it is likely to degrade interoperability. >> > Hmmm. Two of (arguably) the four best known BSD distributions have it. > The idea of -i meaning case insensitivity is there already in other (1) > commands, so I'd say it makes sense to add. > > From a practical standpoint, I'm all for it. I've missed killing things > because of this. Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid I'm killing too *much*... That said, there is merit in adding -i since it is quite consistently used in many places, so I say go for it unless it collides with a switch in some other major *nix (of which I can't think of any right now). But it's really not a biggie in my opinion and I fully recognize Ingo's standpoint as valid as well although I have a hard time seeing it being seriously used in portable scripts, which would make the interoperability argument a bit moot. If I look at myself I'd probably never use it in pkill but perhaps occasionally in pgrep. Regards, /Benny -- internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must Benny Lvfgren/ mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, / fax:+46 8 551 124 89/not counted." /email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
On 06/11/11 16:44, Ingo Schwarze wrote: Hi, Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100: Add -i to ignore case when matching process name It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it. NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@). FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later. procps.cvs.sourceforge.net (used e.g. in Debian) does not have -i. OpenSolaris does not have -i. So I'd say we shouldn't add it. It is not terribly useful; hopefully, you at least know how the processes you are searching for are called. Even if not, you can use ps ax | grep -i to find out, then use the exact name you found for pkill. Personally, i never felt a need for pkill -i, although i'm using pkill a lot. It is not universal, so it is likely to degrade interoperability. Yours, Ingo Hmmm. Two of (arguably) the four best known BSD distributions have it. The idea of -i meaning case insensitivity is there already in other (1) commands, so I'd say it makes sense to add. From a practical standpoint, I'm all for it. I've missed killing things because of this. --STeve Andre'
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
* On 2011-06-11 at 21:44 BST, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100: > > > Add -i to ignore case when matching process name > > It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it. > > NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@). Right, that's me, I figured it might be useful for OpenBSD too (which I started using recently). > FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later. > procps.cvs.sourceforge.net (used e.g. in Debian) does not have -i. > OpenSolaris does not have -i. > > So I'd say we shouldn't add it. > > It is not terribly useful; hopefully, you at least know > how the processes you are searching for are called. I don't remember the exact use case I required when I first added it, but I think it was for a group of similar-named processes where some where uppercase (but had the same name). > Even if not, you can use ps ax | grep -i to find out, > then use the exact name you found for pkill. > Personally, i never felt a need for pkill -i, > although i'm using pkill a lot. Well the primary use would be for pgrep (which is where I mainly use it), to avoid having to do what you typed above, but no problem if you don't feel it's worth having in OpenBSD. Cheers, -- Jonathan Perkin www.perkin.org.uk github.com/jperkin twitter.com/jperkin
Re: Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
Hi,
Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100:
> Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it.
NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@).
FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later.
procps.cvs.sourceforge.net (used e.g. in Debian) does not have -i.
OpenSolaris does not have -i.
So I'd say we shouldn't add it.
It is not terribly useful; hopefully, you at least know
how the processes you are searching for are called.
Even if not, you can use ps ax | grep -i to find out,
then use the exact name you found for pkill.
Personally, i never felt a need for pkill -i,
although i'm using pkill a lot.
It is not universal, so it is likely to degrade interoperability.
Yours,
Ingo
> Index: pkill.1
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkill/pkill.1,v
> retrieving revision 1.16
> diff -u -r1.16 pkill.1
> --- pkill.1 29 Sep 2010 07:44:56 - 1.16
> +++ pkill.1 17 May 2011 21:50:36 -
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> .Nd find or signal processes by name
> .Sh SYNOPSIS
> .Nm pgrep
> -.Op Fl flnovx
> +.Op Fl filnovx
> .Op Fl d Ar delim
> .Op Fl G Ar gid
> .Op Fl g Ar pgrp
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
> .Op Ar pattern ...
> .Nm pkill
> .Op Fl Ar signal
> -.Op Fl fnovx
> +.Op Fl finovx
> .Op Fl G Ar gid
> .Op Fl g Ar pgrp
> .Op Fl P Ar ppid
> @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@
> or
> .Nm pkill
> command.
> +.It Fl i
> +Ignore case when matching process name.
> .It Fl l
> Long output.
> Print the process name in addition to the process ID for each matching
> Index: pkill.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkill/pkill.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.19
> diff -u -r1.19 pkill.c
> --- pkill.c 10 Apr 2011 03:20:59 - 1.19
> +++ pkill.c 17 May 2011 21:50:36 -
> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
> int longfmt;
> int matchargs;
> int fullmatch;
> +int regflags = REG_EXTENDED;
> kvm_t*kd;
> pid_tmypid;
>
> @@ -149,7 +150,7 @@
>
> criteria = 0;
>
> - while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "G:P:U:d:fg:lnos:t:u:vx")) != -1)
> + while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "G:P:U:d:fg:ilnos:t:u:vx")) != -1)
> switch (ch) {
> case 'G':
> makelist(&rgidlist, LT_GROUP, optarg);
> @@ -175,6 +176,9 @@
> makelist(&pgrplist, LT_PGRP, optarg);
> criteria = 1;
> break;
> + case 'i':
> + regflags |= REG_ICASE;
> + break;
> case 'l':
> if (!pgrep)
> usage();
> @@ -243,7 +247,7 @@
>* Refine the selection.
>*/
> for (; *argv != NULL; argv++) {
> - if ((rv = regcomp(®, *argv, REG_EXTENDED)) != 0) {
> + if ((rv = regcomp(®, *argv, regflags)) != 0) {
> regerror(rv, ®, buf, sizeof(buf));
> errx(STATUS_BADUSAGE, "bad expression: %s", buf);
> }
> @@ -419,9 +423,9 @@
> const char *ustr;
>
> if (pgrep)
> - ustr = "[-flnovx] [-d delim]";
> + ustr = "[-filnovx] [-d delim]";
> else
> - ustr = "[-signal] [-fnovx]";
> + ustr = "[-signal] [-finovx]";
>
> fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s %s [-G gid] [-g pgrp] [-P ppid] [-s sid] "
> "[-t tty]\n\t[-U uid] [-u euid] [pattern ...]\n", __progname, ustr);
Small pgrep/pkill enhancement
Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
Index: pkill.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkill/pkill.1,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 pkill.1
--- pkill.1 29 Sep 2010 07:44:56 - 1.16
+++ pkill.1 17 May 2011 21:50:36 -
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
.Nd find or signal processes by name
.Sh SYNOPSIS
.Nm pgrep
-.Op Fl flnovx
+.Op Fl filnovx
.Op Fl d Ar delim
.Op Fl G Ar gid
.Op Fl g Ar pgrp
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
.Op Ar pattern ...
.Nm pkill
.Op Fl Ar signal
-.Op Fl fnovx
+.Op Fl finovx
.Op Fl G Ar gid
.Op Fl g Ar pgrp
.Op Fl P Ar ppid
@@ -93,6 +93,8 @@
or
.Nm pkill
command.
+.It Fl i
+Ignore case when matching process name.
.It Fl l
Long output.
Print the process name in addition to the process ID for each matching
Index: pkill.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkill/pkill.c,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -r1.19 pkill.c
--- pkill.c 10 Apr 2011 03:20:59 - 1.19
+++ pkill.c 17 May 2011 21:50:36 -
@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
intlongfmt;
intmatchargs;
intfullmatch;
+intregflags = REG_EXTENDED;
kvm_t *kd;
pid_t mypid;
@@ -149,7 +150,7 @@
criteria = 0;
- while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "G:P:U:d:fg:lnos:t:u:vx")) != -1)
+ while ((ch = getopt(argc, argv, "G:P:U:d:fg:ilnos:t:u:vx")) != -1)
switch (ch) {
case 'G':
makelist(&rgidlist, LT_GROUP, optarg);
@@ -175,6 +176,9 @@
makelist(&pgrplist, LT_PGRP, optarg);
criteria = 1;
break;
+ case 'i':
+ regflags |= REG_ICASE;
+ break;
case 'l':
if (!pgrep)
usage();
@@ -243,7 +247,7 @@
* Refine the selection.
*/
for (; *argv != NULL; argv++) {
- if ((rv = regcomp(®, *argv, REG_EXTENDED)) != 0) {
+ if ((rv = regcomp(®, *argv, regflags)) != 0) {
regerror(rv, ®, buf, sizeof(buf));
errx(STATUS_BADUSAGE, "bad expression: %s", buf);
}
@@ -419,9 +423,9 @@
const char *ustr;
if (pgrep)
- ustr = "[-flnovx] [-d delim]";
+ ustr = "[-filnovx] [-d delim]";
else
- ustr = "[-signal] [-fnovx]";
+ ustr = "[-signal] [-finovx]";
fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s %s [-G gid] [-g pgrp] [-P ppid] [-s sid] "
"[-t tty]\n\t[-U uid] [-u euid] [pattern ...]\n", __progname, ustr);
