Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:56:55 -0800 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nagios vs w/uptime Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_OYrke6maUfanoJoc%2Bc=grGgVZRH7co9noFmO2BLcwLrw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1423603964.80968.28.camel@freebsd.org> References: <54DA617A.4090309@wemm.org> <A3904FE0-2D03-4290-B29E-395E8C6F6F96@xcllnt.net> <4A76A371-B573-4E62-BE78-94944963FFD0@freebsd.org> <E36EA56E-3B9E-4C40-B984-E7BE97F0175E@freebsd.org> <1423603964.80968.28.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I wonder if that implies that any non-normal exit from a program that > has been xo'd will result in the loss of output that would not have been > lost before the xo changes? That could lead to all kinds of subtle > failures of existing scripts and apps. Well, so long as the app doesn't crash in a way that would bypass it shouldn't registering that with atexit() flush any pending output? -K
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_OYrke6maUfanoJoc%2Bc=grGgVZRH7co9noFmO2BLcwLrw>