[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s
From: |
Steffen Nurpmeso |
Subject: |
Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Nov 2023 19:07:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
s-nail v14.9.24-563-g944131280a |
Chet Ramey wrote in
<7402031f-424c-4766-ba70-71771c9dc32b@case.edu>:
|On 11/8/23 8:12 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> The "problem" with the current way bash is doing it is that bash's
|> job handling does not recognize jobs die under the hood:
|>
|> $ jobs
|> [1]- Stopped LESS= less -RIFe README
|> [2]+ Stopped LESS= less -RIFe TODO
|> $ kill $(jobs -p)
|> $
|>
|> ^ nothing
|>
|> $ jobs
|> [1]- Stopped LESS= less -RIFe README
|> [2]+ Stopped LESS= less -RIFe TODO
|
|Yes, the jobs are still stopped, and will remain stopped until they get
|a SIGCONT. Do you think that kill, when given a pid argument, should look
|up any job associated with that pid and send it a SIGCONT? Or should it
|send a SIGCONT to the pid unconditionally? If so, what about other
|processes in that job?
Hm coming from this other side is also an interesting thing, but
which i did not think about. I mean .. "if the lookup is fast"
kill(1) could of course throw all of its arguments against the
list of tracked processes, not only %job specifications.
(Having said that i am personally still hoping for a shell syntax
extension that closes the race condition of PID reuse against
kill(1), in that if i "kill -TERM ID" where ID is known to be
a monitored process, but which has terminated, the shell will
reject doing the kill as such. Also the "kill -0 && kill -X" gap
is a race in itself. But that is of course a different topic.)
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, (continued)
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, alex xmb sw ratchev, 2023/11/09
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Oğuz, 2023/11/09
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2023/11/10
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Greg Wooledge, 2023/11/10
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Steffen Nurpmeso, 2023/11/10
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Eric Pruitt, 2023/11/10
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Greg Wooledge, 2023/11/10
- the portability of seq(1) (was: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s), G. Branden Robinson, 2023/11/10
- Re: the portability of seq(1) (was: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s), Greg Wooledge, 2023/11/10
Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s, Chet Ramey, 2023/11/10
- Re: Idea: jobs(1) -i to print only :%ID:s,
Steffen Nurpmeso <=