You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Because the comparison happens before incrementing and uses >, --hardkill-count 3 behaves as follows:
Signal
Counter before signal
Result
1
0
Graceful shutdown
2
1
Graceful shutdown
3
2
Graceful shutdown
4
3
Graceful shutdown
5
4
Hardkill
If the value means “three termination signals before hardkill,” I would expect the fourth signal to trigger the hardkill. The current implementation triggers it on the fifth signal.
Would this condition be expected to use >= instead?
changed the title [-]--hardkill-count appears off by one and does not count signals to the main process as documented[/-][+]--hardkill-count appears off by one[/+]on Jul 17, 2026
Activity
[-]--hardkill-count appears off by one and does not count signals to the main process as documented[/-][+]--hardkill-count appears off by one[/+]