[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#10349: tail: fix --follow on FhGFS remote file systems

From: Pádraig Brady
Subject: bug#10349: tail: fix --follow on FhGFS remote file systems
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:55:20 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0

On 12/23/2011 12:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 12/22/2011 11:48 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2011 09:50 PM, Alan Curry wrote:
>>>> Bob Proulx writes:
>>>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>>>> Are there so many new remote file systems coming into use now?
>>>>>> That are not listed in /usr/include/linux/magic.h?
>>>>> The past can always be enumerated.  The future is always changing.  It
>>>>> isn't possible to have a complete list of future items.  It is only
>>>>> possible to have a complete list of past items.  The future is not yet
>>>>> written.
>>>> Between past and future is the present, i.e. the currently running kernel.
>>>> Shouldn't it return an error when you use an interface that isn't 
>>>> implemented
>>>> by the underlying filesystem? Why doesn't this happen?
>>> That's a fair point.
>>> Eric shouldn't some/all remote file systems in the kernel
>>> return ENOTSUP for inotify operations?
>> Oh right, as Sven points out,
>> a notification _is_ sent for local processes modifying a remote file.
>> I guess we'd need a IN_REMOTE flag (send remote events too), which
>> remote file systems would return ENOTSUP if they don't support that.
>> That's getting a bit awkward though.
> I'm thinking of recording[*] which file systems are local and which
> are remote.

You mean by tagging the table in stat.c with say "(remote)" after the hex 
Then use that to build a header for use by tail::fremote() ?

> Then we can make tail -f warn when one or more of
> its file arguments resides on a remote file system.  We may finally
> have to add and document --disable-inotify.

Currently we fall back to polling for remote file systems.
I'm not sure it's worth warning since it's only a latency difference.

> [*] It's easy to record local/remote in a table from which a switch stmt
> or gperf table is derived, just as is currently done for FS magic numbers.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]