Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:15:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: DougB@DougBarton.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable Message-ID: <200105251815.f4PIF7242701@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-current/3B0DD6BD.8E54A5E5@DougBarton.net> References: <local.mail.freebsd-current/200009011622.JAA29262@csla.csl.sri.com> <local.mail.freebsd-current/20000902171753.A43451@magnesium.scientia.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-current/3B0DD6BD.8E54A5E5@DougBarton.net> 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 majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105251815.f4PIF7242701>