On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Philip Prindeville <phil...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote: > On 9/3/10 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >>> >>> I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being >>> accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes. >>> >>> The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is: >>> >>> wait [[-a] n] >>> >>> instead, which asynchronously checks to see if process 'n' has completed. >> >> What's wrong with using the existing 'kill -0 pid' to check if pid still >> exists, rather than inventing a new argument to 'wait'? >> > > Well, in theory, if you waited long enough (to look for the process), and it > had exited and a new process with that id was created, you'd detect the > wrong process. > > At least with 'wait' you're guaranteed it's still in your process-group, > right? > > Besides, 'wait' is just a lot easier to read and understand... not everyone > knows the system call semantics of kill(). > > >
What about kill -0 %jobid instead of pid?
