Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] inotify 0.10.0 | From | Ray Lee <> | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:32:12 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 16:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 15:08, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > > > > > > The current way pads out the structure unnecessarily, and still doesn't > > > handle the really long filenames, by your admission. It incurs extra > > > syscalls, as few filenames are really 256 characters in length. > > > > Why don't you pass a file descriptor into the syscall instead of a pathname? > > You can then take a ref on the inode and userspace can close the file. > > That gets you permission checking for free. > > > > I don't think moving inotify to a syscall based interface is worth it. > > First off, on startup, this would require about 2k open() calls, > followed by 2k syscalls to inotify.
And then 2k close() calls.
> Not as nice as just 2k ioctl() calls.
<shrug> Syscalls aren't free, but they aren't the end of the world.
> The character device interface right now suits it perfectly. If we used > syscalls we would need to provide a syscall that gives user space a FD > that it can read events on,
Again, apologies, I should know better than to write email on short sleep. All I was suggesting was that we pass in an fd that comes from open(), and that we should look at replacing the ioctl with write(). I like it as a character device, honest.
Ray
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |