[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081124073018.GC10119@ioremap.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:30:19 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To: John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events.
Hi John.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:08:05PM -0800, John McCutchan (john@...nmccutchan.com) wrote:
> At this point I don't really want to see changes made to inotify. But,
> for arguments sake, why not something like inotify_init1 that takes a
> flag EXTENDED_EVENT which causes a larger event structure to be used.
> Something like,
>
> struct inotify_event_extended
> {
> s32 wd;
> u32 mask;
> u32 cookie;
> u32 data[4];
> char path[0];
> }
>
> The data array could be used to store arbitrary extra information,
> specified by flags.
What will happen when above array is not enough to store needed info?
Although I do not see any reason to send start/offset for the IO itself,
but if it will be decided to do so, above array already is not large
enough. I think I will cook up preliminary patch to add nested
attributes into event structure like I described previously in the
thread to get people involved with working example.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists