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: > > > > I'll have to try. But I'm wondering why there is no rescan after one > > does a sync-mailbox with actual changes: in any case, this may be > > necessary as new mail could arrive during this time. > > So, in effect, remove the call to maildir_update_mtime() at the end of > mh_sync_mailbox()?
I've tried again without any change and with debugging support, on a different machine.I did a first unison. 2 new messages should have appeared, but debugging showed "mh.c:835: queueing ..." messages, then "mh.c:880 maildir_add_to_context(): Considering ..." messages. without these new messages, which did not appear in the mailbox. I did a second unison. These 2 new messages appeared, but not a newer one that should have appeared. I think that there is a race condition with the inotify code: the inotify event is obtained while the mailbox hasn't been completely updated, so that one doesn't get the latest messages. What might happen is that the directory is being updated during the readdir. Together with other race conditions, things may be worse than what I'm seeing here. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@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)
