Re: [PATCH] tests: tail-2/pid: use a 3-second timeout, not 1

[Jim Meyering]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
...
> Actually taking a closer look this morning shows
> a race in tail_forever_inotify().
> Hopefully the attached addresses both that and the redundant delay.
>
> cheers,
> Pádraig.
>>From d0a8f4b88196e8808300ec5b4f4dd424fc0d2073 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:36:25 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] tail: avoid a race where we could miss new data with --pid
>
> * src/tail.c (tail_forever, tail_forever_inotify): Close a race in
> tail_forever_inotify where new data written after the file check by
> a now dead process, but before the pid check is not output.  We use
> the POSIX guarantee that read() and write() are serialized wrt each
> other even in separate processes, to assume full file consistency
> after exit() and so poll for new data _after_ the writer has exited.
> This also allows us to not redundantly _wait_ for new data if the
> process is dead.
> * tests/tail-2/pid: Remove the now partially invalid sub second sleep
> check as we now don't unconditionally wait, and replace it with a check
> for the redundant sleep.  Also clarify some of the existing comments.
> * NEWS: Mention the fix.
> ---
>  NEWS             |    6 ++++++
>  gnulib           |    2 +-

Thanks!
I'll take a look shortly.
Please omit that change to gnulib.