Add new bootstat_get_last command

Add new bootstat_last command

BUG=chromium-os:9701
TEST=None

Committed: http://chrome-svn/viewvc/chromeos?view=rev&revision=bc198e5

[jrbarnette, 2010-12-03 23:40:31]

This change is first in a series intended to reduce coupling between
boot code and boot statistics gathering.  This new command means
clients won't have to depend on specific file paths for access to statistics.

A companion change to upstart jobs will follow.

[petkov, 2010-12-04 00:00:55]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/README
File README (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/README#newcode19
README:19: 'bootstat_last' command usage:
I'd suggest a better name but I don't have any better suggestions :/ Maybe
bootstat_dump?

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last
File bootstat_last (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last#newcode14
bootstat_last:14: if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
you could do this on one line:

[ $# -eq 0 ] && ...

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last#newcode38
bootstat_last:38: if [ -f $STATFILE ]; then
you could do this on one line:
[ -f $STATFILE ] && ...

[jrbarnette, 2010-12-04 00:12:49]

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last
File bootstat_last (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last#newcode14
bootstat_last:14: if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
On 2010/12/04 00:00:55, petkov wrote:
> you could do this on one line:
> 
> [ $# -eq 0 ] && ...

The code guidelines actually discourage this, and I'm not fond of it, either.

[petkov, 2010-12-04 00:15:17]

On 2010/12/04 00:12:49, jrbarnette wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last
> File bootstat_last (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last#newcode14
> bootstat_last:14: if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
> On 2010/12/04 00:00:55, petkov wrote:
> > you could do this on one line:
> > 
> > [ $# -eq 0 ] && ...
> 
> The code guidelines actually discourage this, and I'm not fond of it, either.

It was just a suggestion and I like it because it saves vertical space which is
considered a premium. Where is this discouraged? There're examples with using [
.. ] && ..., although not for $# specifically.

[jrbarnette, 2010-12-04 00:27:15]

On 2010/12/04 00:15:17, petkov wrote:
> On 2010/12/04 00:12:49, jrbarnette wrote:
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last
> > File bootstat_last (right):
> > 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/5265008/diff/15001/bootstat_last#newcode14
> > bootstat_last:14: if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
> > On 2010/12/04 00:00:55, petkov wrote:
> > > you could do this on one line:
> > > 
> > > [ $# -eq 0 ] && ...
> > 
> > The code guidelines actually discourage this, and I'm not fond of it,
either.
> 
> It was just a suggestion and I like it because it saves vertical space which
is
> considered a premium. Where is this discouraged? There're examples with using
[
> .. ] && ..., although not for $# specifically.

Well, I thought I read it once, but it's not there now.  :-(
I'm still not fond of it.  :-)

[jrbarnette, 2010-12-07 01:46:18]

OK, we've got a brand, shiny new name!

This should be it, but if you've got anymore slings and arrows, please
get 'em in before tomorrow morning!

[petkov, 2010-12-07 05:01:38]

LGTM