Re: [PATCH] simply and fix a race in 2 tail --follow tests

[Jim Meyering]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I had noticed these tests were a little verbose and
> had meant to simplify them. Coincidentally today
> I triggered a race in tail-2/pid, so the attached
> patch kills two birds with the one stone.

Good timing.  I hit this today, too.

>>From ba37fb2e96334b3cc784a4387d74f726be9be98d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 00:39:17 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] tests: simplify and fix a race in 2 tail --follow tests
>
> * tests/tail-2/pid: Use the timeout command to determine process
> longevity, rather than querying /proc/$pid/status.
> That was racy in any case as I presume the test was copied

slightly clearer: s/That/The latter/

FYI, tail -f with an unchanging file is different,
now that it's based on inotify.  Before, it really was
always in the 'S' state.  Now, it wakes up periodically.
Hence this race.

> from tail-2/tail-n0f and wasn't updated to handle the case
> where the background process was in the R (running) state.
> * tests/tail-2/wait: Likewise.
> ---
>  tests/tail-2/pid  |   37 +++------------------
>  tests/tail-2/wait |   93 
> ++++++++---------------------------------------------
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/tail-2/pid b/tests/tail-2/pid

Looks fine, and works for me.

Thanks!