On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:41:34PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > Hi, > > nanosleep(2) won't take more than 100 million seconds at a time, > so we ought to cap interval when we read it in. Otherwise, an > oversized interval argument causes iostat(8) to print as fast as > it can. > > While here, "interval" is called "wait" in the documentation when > the new syntax is in use, so we should call it that in the error > message for the '-w' flag. > > ok?
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to check nanonsleep's return value and do err(1, "nanosleep"); if it fails. This way we don't have to remember to modify iostat if we ever change nanosleep to support longer timeouts.