inotify polling in master branch

Vincent Lefevre vincent at vinc17.org
Mon Jun 11 13:32:14 UTC 2018


On 2018-06-11 20:46:51 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > On 2018-06-11 08:07:22 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > > > > What if instead, we changed the code from a ">" comparison to
> > > > > > a "!=" comparison. This would force a rescan if the mtime were
> > > > > > reset backwards:
> > 
> > This doesn't have any effect.
> 
> The maildir_check_mailbox() performs a stat first, then scans for new
> mail.  How is it that the messages are added during/after the scan but
> the directory mtime doesn't change?  If unison were resetting mtime, it
> shouldn't be to the time when we scanned but didn't find all the
> messages.

I've just checked: unison doesn't reset the mtime on the "new"
directory. For instance:

Initially,

drwx------ 2 vlefevre vlefevre 135168 2018-06-11 15:22:00 new/

Then I ran unison, giving:

UNISON 2.48.3 started propagating changes at 15:22:07.33 on 11 Jun 2018
[...]
UNISON 2.48.3 finished propagating changes at 15:22:07.39 on 11 Jun 2018

and

drwx------ 2 vlefevre vlefevre 135168 2018-06-11 15:22:07 new/

BTW, it would be great if Mutt debug messages could contain timestamps
with a subsecond precision (even though unison doesn't detail the
timestamps between the above 2 messages).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent at vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


More information about the Mutt-dev mailing list