Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:00:31 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqueue alternative? Message-ID: <3EECB43F.8010609@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030615172902.GB4882@webserver.get-linux.org> References: <1079.10.0.81.10.1055692530.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030615125423.98988D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20030615172902.GB4882@webserver.get-linux.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joshua Oreman wrote: > 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 Either select(2) or poll(2) should work. -- Stephen Montgomery-Smith stephen@math.missouri.edu http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EECB43F.8010609>