Messages in this thread | | | From | "Sean R. Bright" <> | Subject | FS callback routines | Date | Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:21:31 -0500 |
| |
Ok, before I begin, don't shoot me down, but I had an idea for a kernel modification and was wondering how feasible the group thought it was.
I was writing a user space application to monitor a folder's contents. The folder itself contained 100 folders, and each of those contained 24 folders. While writing the code to traverse the directory structure I realized that instead of my software figuring out when things change, why not just have the fs tell my application when something was updated. For example, say we had a function called watch_fs(), that took an inode reference and a function pointer and maybe a bitmask of events to watch for. When that inode (or its children) were changed, why couldn't the fs code call the callback function I specified?
I have no idea how expensive this would be or if its even worth it at this point. It also wouldn't be portable at all considering that I know of no other OS that does this (could be wrong).
Like I said, I am not asking that this be (necessarily) implemented, I am just curious as to what the percieved performance ramifications would be if it were to implemented, say, by a virgin kernel developer ;)
Thanks, Sean elixer@erols.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |