Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > Considering the amount of complexity it adds to already-dense code > (in spite of the fact that some is just due to indentation changes), > for so little gain (who will use tail -f on stdin and care whether tail > is sleep-based or inotify-based?), I'm reluctant to use it at all. > > Is there a good reason to want to avoid the sleep-based code > in this corner case?
In my opinion, it is desiderable that tail works approximately in the same way when stdin is specified, as we are already doing with --pid. If we decide to handle this too, there will not be any known case that the inotify back-end doesn't support. > Summarizing what this patch does: it changes e.g., tail -f - F1 F2 F3 > not to revert to the sleep-based implementation solely due > to the presence of an unnamed (stdin) file, "-". > Instead, the files F1, F2, F3 would still be tracked efficiently via > inotify, and stdin would be tracked via a select-based wait. Exactly. Giuseppe
