From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 15 10:26:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4867C37B401 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl-64-161-78-226.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net (adsl-64-161-78-226.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.161.78.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F86C43F93 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oremanj@adsl-64-161-78-226.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net) Received: (qmail 5009 invoked by uid 1001); 15 Jun 2003 17:29:02 -0000 Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:29:02 -0700 From: Joshua Oreman To: hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030615172902.GB4882@webserver.get-linux.org> References: <1079.10.0.81.10.1055692530.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: kqueue alternative? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:26:42 -0000 On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Matthew Hagerty wrote: > I'm writing a little application that needs to watch a file that another > process is writing to, think 'tail -F'. kqueue and kevent are going to > do it for me on *BSD, but I'm also trying to support *cough* linux and > other UN*X types OSes. > > >From what I can find on google, the linux community seems very opposed > to kqueue and has not yet implemented it (they say: blah blah blah, > aio_*, blah blah balh.) What alternatives do I have with OSes that > don't support kqueue? I'd really hate to poll with stat(), but do I > have any other choices? I would say, use select(2). Is there a reason this wouldn't work? -- Josh