From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 26 22:57: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from beppo.feral.com (beppo.feral.com [192.67.166.79]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9193D37B401 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:56:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from beppo (mjacob@beppo [192.67.166.79]) by beppo.feral.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6R5ueI10695; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:56:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:56:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@beppo Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Igor Podlesny Cc: "(Dave Chapeskie)" , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re[2]: perhaps one of phk's "intern" projects? In-Reply-To: <136343488199.20010727135240@morning.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hmm. 'at teatime' seems the same as 'at reboot' On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Igor Podlesny wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> It'd be nice if one could pass a time specification to at in the form > >> of "next reboot". > > look... there is a big difference between time specification in > at-program and suggested reboot keyword... I'd say it is like > incompatible types... messing up time values and conditions like reboot > which are certainly kept within time but AREN'T time values by itself. > > from man: > "... > At allows some moderately complex time specifications. > ..." > > but it's always foreseen when precisely the action will have it place > if the power is on and everything in system works ok. > In case of reboot, this statement fails. > > So, I deem, it's not worth implementation within 'at' syntax. If > somebody want such thing as 'do something on the next reboot', let's > write another program (call it onreboot for e.g.) and try to use it. > Although I bet, it isn't so necessary as it could seemed at first > glance. > > > >> > >> -matt > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Matthew Emmerton replied: > >> Why not just write a script for the command and stick it in > >> /usr/local/etc/rc.d? > >> > >> -- Matt Emmerton > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:45:58PM -0700, Matthew Jacob replied: > >> Because I thought this might be of general utility. > > > > Okay, try the attached patch. If this is really something that might be > > generally usefully I can submit the patch as a PR. > > > It allows "at reboot" and "at reboot + 1 hour", etc. > > > It does it by sticking the job in the queue with the filename prefixed > > with "_" (yeah, a bit ugly, it was the first thing that came to me) and > > with the runtime based on the epoch instead of the current time. > > > Adding: > > @reboot root /usr/libexec/atrun -b > > to /etc/crontab causes atrun(8) to rename all of these jobs adding the > > current time to the jobs runtime. > > > > % echo "echo test" | at reboot > > Job 19 will be executed using /bin/sh > > > % echo "echo test" | at reboot + 90 minutes > > Job 20 will be executed using /bin/sh > > > % atq > > Date Owner Queue Job# > > REBOOT dchapes c 19 > > REBOOT+01:30:00 dchapes c 20 > > what if a user rebooted the box, before this REBOOT+1:30:00 has been > occured? will it be discarded or what? > > > $ date; /usr/libexec/atrun -b > > > % atq -v > > Date Owner Queue Job# > > 22:34:00 07/26/01 dchapes c 20 > > 21:04:00 07/26/01 dchapes c(done) 19 > > -- > Igor mailto:poige@morning.ru > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message