From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 25 11:16: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (cb58709-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.17.241.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B3C37B423 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jlemon@flugsvamp.com) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f4PIF7242701; Fri, 25 May 2001 13:15:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:15:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Lemon Message-Id: <200105251815.f4PIF7242701@prism.flugsvamp.com> To: DougB@DougBarton.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tail -f over NFS in -stable X-Newsgroups: local.mail.freebsd-current In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Cc: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article 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