On 04/17/2013 06:39 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 04/04/2013 03:42 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I've nothing against simplicity though since the >> inotify code already deals with missing files when >> following by name, by watching the parent dir, >> it might be easy to adjust to handle this case. > > Hi Padraig, > > sorry for the late reply. > > Somehow, I don't have a good feeling for using inotify in the > --follow=descriptor case because inotify works with file names. > > Once tail opens the file successfully after inotify says it's > there, tail would have to go back to polling, because all further > inotify events are only relevant for the file name, not the > descriptor. >>From playing with the inotify code, I even had the impression that > there are not all events delivered to tail reliably. Is this true?
I've not noticed such issues TBH. What kernel we you using for reference? > Additionally to the above, I noticed that tail now would no longer > exit in the case the file appears untailable, e.g. when it appears > as directory. I fixed this, too. Excellent thanks. You may want to consider using the existing retry_delay_() rather than wait4lines() in the tests, but otherwise it looks good to push. thanks! Pádraig.
