[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpeguO8Qwkzx9zfGVT7W+pT5p6fgj-_8oJqJbXX_KQBpLLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:17:06 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, andres@...razel.de,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, dray@...hat.com,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] watch_queue: Implement mount topology and attribute
change notifications [ver #5]
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> > > fsinfo() then allows you to retrieve them by path or by mount ID.
> >
> > Shouldn't the notification interface provide the unique ID?
>
> Hmmm... If I'm going to do that, I have to put the fsinfo-core branch first
> otherwise you can't actually retrieve the unique ID - and thus won't be able
> to make sense of the notification record. Such a rearrangement might make
> sense anyway since Ian and Karel have been primarily concentrating on fsinfo
> and only more recently started adding notification support.
OTOH mount notification is way smaller and IMO a more mature
interface. So just picking the unique ID patch into this set might
make sense.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists