[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5FB2A21F-95D3-4B99-A521-74346EEEAF5B@dilger.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:19:07 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] notification tree: directory events
On 2010-08-19, at 21:38, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 01:41 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> Being able to identify the object that an event refers to is important. There
>> are two ways to do that:
>>
>> (1) Include fields like st_dev and st_ino in struct
>> fanotify_event_metadata.
>
> On a more realistic note, I'm not opposed to (1), however, your
> arguments would lead one to reject inotify as the IN_OVERFLOW or oom
> conditions will result in silently lost events or events which provide
> no useful information since the notification system has broken down.
> When the appropriate use of notification is impossible I'm certainly not
> opposed to patches which add best effort information, but you are
> already outside the bounds of a reasonably functional system and there
> is no good solution.
What about unifying the file identification here with the file handle used for open_by_handle()? That keeps a consistent identifier for the inode between multiple system calls (always a good thing), and allows the inode to be opened again via open_by_handle() if needed.
Cheers, Andreas
--
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