pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pmie observations

To: "Davis, Todd C" <todd.c.davis@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pmie observations
From: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:31:27 +1000
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.SGI.4.40.0210170810510.305974-100000@rattle.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
This time, _with_ the patch attached!

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Ken McDonell wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Davis, Todd C wrote:
>
> > After using pmie on Linux I have observed the following:
> >
> > It appears that the pmie alarm action does not work on Linux.
>
> You're correct (this is one of those GUI areas that is hard to cover
> in automated QA) ... the problem is the path to the IRIX version of
> xconfirm is hard-coded.  The attached patch to src/pmie/src/act.sk
> should fix it ... at least it did fix it for my simple test:
>
> > Also the '|' action operator is ineffective since only failed forks cause an
> > action to fail.
>
> OK, I guess the issue here is that we don't capture the exit status from
> the "shell" action ... all the other actions will succeed by definition.
>
> Is this the issue?  If so, I'll have to take a look at logic here ...
> seems like there is one too many level of fork() that is getting in
> the way.  Do you have a simple test case?
>
> > The UPM has the expression 'environ.temp @1 - environ.temp $0 > 2' for a
>                                           I hope it says --> @0
> > rising temperature test.
> > This looks like a test for a falling temperature instead.
>
> Yes the man page is incorrect (I've fixed it) ... this is indeed
> falling temperature ... to get rising temperature you need
>
>       environ.temp @0 - environ.temp @1 > 2
>
> > Are my pmie observations correct?
>
> Pretty much ... 8^)>
>
> Thanks.
>
>

Attachment: eek
Description: patch

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>