[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:39:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071008) |
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH] tail: fix tail -f failure when inotify used
>>
>> * src/tail.c (tail_inotify_forever): Use the correct bounds
>> in the error check of the return from inotify_add_watch().
>> Reported by C de-Avillez.
>> ---
>> src/tail.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/tail.c b/src/tail.c
>> index 3c8f425..7d84bec 100644
>> --- a/src/tail.c
>> +++ b/src/tail.c
>> @@ -1231,7 +1231,7 @@ tail_forever_inotify (int wd, struct File_spec *f,
>> size_t n_files,
>> if (hash_insert (wd_table, &(f[i])) == NULL)
>> xalloc_die ();
>>
>> - if (follow_mode == Follow_name || f[i].wd)
>> + if (follow_mode == Follow_name || 0 <= f[i].wd)
>
> Ten lines above that, we ensure that 0 <= f[i].wd is true,
> so this stmt:
> if (follow_mode == Follow_name || 0 <= f[i].wd)
> is equivalent to this:
> if (follow_mode == Follow_name || true)
> aka,
> if (true)
>
> so perhaps that change should be larger:
>
> - if (follow_mode == Follow_name || f[i].wd)
> - found_watchable = true;
> + found_watchable = true;
>
> Also, the initialization (farther above) of f[i].wd to a valid
> file descriptor value (0) seems like a mistake:
>
> - f[i].wd = 0;
> + f[i].wd = -1;
>
> What do you think?
>
Agreed. I'll push the attached soon.
cheers,
Pádraig.
>From 0126b5c9276f9206c8b2c35cd7890267c962ae31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:01:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] tail: fix tail -f failure when inotify used
* src/tail.c (tail_forever_inotify): Remove the redundant and
incorrect error check of the return from inotify_add_watch().
Also initialize the wd member of each File_spec to an invalid value.
Reported by C de-Avillez.
---
src/tail.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/tail.c b/src/tail.c
index 3c8f425..6f83706 100644
--- a/src/tail.c
+++ b/src/tail.c
@@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@ tail_forever_inotify (int wd, struct File_spec *f, size_t
n_files,
if (evlen < fnlen)
evlen = fnlen;
- f[i].wd = 0;
+ f[i].wd = -1;
if (follow_mode == Follow_name)
{
@@ -1231,8 +1231,7 @@ tail_forever_inotify (int wd, struct File_spec *f, size_t
n_files,
if (hash_insert (wd_table, &(f[i])) == NULL)
xalloc_die ();
- if (follow_mode == Follow_name || f[i].wd)
- found_watchable = true;
+ found_watchable = true;
}
}
--
1.6.2.5
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, (continued)
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Pádraig Brady, 2009/08/12
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Pádraig Brady, 2009/08/12
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, C de-Avillez, 2009/08/12
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, C de-Avillez, 2009/08/12
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Jim Meyering, 2009/08/13
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Jim Meyering, 2009/08/13
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon,
Pádraig Brady <=
- Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Jim Meyering, 2009/08/13
Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Pádraig Brady, 2009/08/13
Re: no feedback on snapshot? coreutils-7.5 coming soon, Eric Blake, 2009/08/14