Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable
Doug Barton wrote: Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up again on -questions. I seem to recall finding it had been fixed elsewhere, though unfortunately I can't remember the details. If it's still needed perhaps you could commit it, I have no time at the moment for FreeBSD stuff unfortunately, I might after June 2nd when my exams have finished and I've got nothing much else to do for 4 whole months. :-) -- Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
again on -questions.
It shouldn't be needed. Instead, the following logic is used:
if (kevent(kq, ev, n, NULL, 0, ts) 0) {
close(kq);
kq = -1;
action = USE_SLEEP;
Registration of a VNODE filter on a filesystem that doesn't understand
it (NFS) should fail. Hardcoding ufs in the binary is the wrong thing
to do; it precludes kernel enhancements later where other filesystems
are taught about kqueue.
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable
Jonathan Lemon wrote: In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up again on -questions. It shouldn't be needed. Ok, your explanation makes perfect sense. I followed up to the user with a little patch that'll tell him for sure if tail is trying to use kqueue or not. I was just concerned that the problem seemed to have cropped back up, but now I think that the user's problem is not in this area. Thanks, Doug -- I need someone really bad. Are you really bad? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable
Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
again on -questions.
Doug
Ben Smithurst wrote:
Fred Gilham wrote:
In 4.1-stable tail -f over NFS polls rather than blocking.
Yes, this is acknowledged in the kqueue() manual page. Try this patch,
it seems to work for me so I might commit it if no-one objects.
Index: forward.c
===
RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/usr.bin/tail/forward.c,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -r1.15 forward.c
--- forward.c 2000/07/18 19:38:38 1.15
+++ forward.c 2000/09/02 16:16:40
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@
static char sccsid[] = @(#)forward.c 8.1 (Berkeley) 6/6/93;
#endif /* not lint */
-#include sys/types.h
+#include sys/param.h
+#include sys/mount.h
#include sys/stat.h
#include sys/time.h
#include sys/mman.h
@@ -96,6 +97,7 @@
int action = USE_SLEEP;
struct kevent ev[2];
struct stat sb2;
+ struct statfs statfsbuf;
switch(style) {
case FBYTES:
@@ -170,7 +172,10 @@
break;
}
- if (fflag) {
+ if (statfs(fname, statfsbuf) != 0)
+ err(1, statfs %s, fname);
+
+ if (fflag strcmp(statfsbuf.f_fstypename, ufs) == 0) {
kq = kqueue();
if (kq 0)
err(1, kqueue);
--
Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D
FreeBSD Documentation Project /
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-stable in the body of the message
--
I need someone really bad. Are you really bad?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
