[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239832148.2562.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:49:08 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, john@...nmccutchan.com, rlove@...ve.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: How SHOULD inotify and hardlinks play together?
touch /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2
ln /tmp/file2 /tmp/hardlinktofile2
[A] Set up one inotify watch on /tmp/file2
[B] Set up another inotify watch on /tmp/hardlinktofile2
(they are both watching the same inode/data)
mv /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2
Right now, today, both [A] and [B] are going to get DELETE_SELF and
IGNORED messages and are not going to get any more notifications.
That might be fine for [A] since the pathname it ask to watch doesn't
exist any more (although I argue the inode still does), but that isn't
right for [B] since /tmp/hardlinktofile2 is still there, still it's own
inode, and still able to receive events, be modified, be read, be
deleted, whatever. But after that mv operation neither [A] nor [B] will
get any more events what-so-ever.
So the question is, should inotify continue to clear all watches on an
inode when something else is moved on top if it even if i_nlink isn't
going to 0? If not, should inotify continue to send a DELETE_SELF like
it does today? Should it instead send an ATTRIB like it does when you
add a hard link?
-Eric
--
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