many tails

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Tue Dec 5 22:16:55 UTC 2006


Cameron Simpson wrote:

> | >Is this the way it should be?
> | 
> | I believe so... if the tail did not subsequently try to show any more 
> | output.  Only when it tries to issue more output to the now gone-away 
> | terminal session would it get a signal that would end up killing it.
> 
> Um, I'm not so sure.
> 
> A foreground tail -f should get a SIGHUP and quit. A background one may
> behave as you describe, being in a different process group.
> 
> Mike: were your "tail -f"s foreground or background?

Hum I just tested the thing on a Konsole of its own, as Cameron says the 
tail (on a static file) died straight away.

I thought I had seen the behaviour I described if I killed a remote ssh 
session but no that dies too.  Maybe it was just things that weren't 
going to respond to a signal.

Maybe it can help to strace the tail with 2>/tmp/dump on the end and 
have a look in there after killing the konsole?

-Andy




More information about the fedora-list mailing list