[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vlzqpije6ltf2jga7btkccraxxnucxrcsqbskdnk6s2sarkitb@5huvtml62a5c>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:57:55 +0200
From: Ahelenia Ziemiańska
<nabijaczleweli@...ijaczleweli.xyz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: splice(-> FIFO) never wakes up inotify IN_MODIFY?
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 02:19:42PM +0200, Ahelenia Ziemiańska wrote:
> > splice(2) differentiates three different cases:
> > if (ipipe && opipe) {
> > ...
> > if (ipipe) {
> > ...
> > if (opipe) {
> > ...
> >
> > IN_ACCESS will only be generated for non-pipe input
> > IN_MODIFY will only be generated for non-pipe output
> >
> > Similarly FAN_ACCESS_PERM fanotify permission events
> > will only be generated for non-pipe input.
Sorry, I must've misunderstood this as "splicing to a pipe generates
*ACCESS". Testing reveals this is not the case. So is it really true
that the only way to poll a pipe is a sleep()/read(O_NONBLOCK) loop?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists