Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:27:41 +1000 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives (was: silent semantic changes with reiser4) |
| |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > Well, dnotify() really _is_ inotify(), since it does actually work on > inodes, not dentries.
The "d" stands for directory not dentry :-)
> I think what they are really complaining about is that dnotify() only > notifies the _directory_ when a file is changed, and they'd like it to > notify the file itself too. Which is a one-liner, really.
I don't think so, since this notify will only happen if the process has registered for the notification and there is no way to register unless the file is a directory ...
> Does the following make sense? (Totally untested, use-at-your-own-risk, > I've-never-actually-used-dnotify-in-user-space, whatever).
I had intended to extend dnotify to do file notifies, but I think the real killer is needing the keep the file open that you want to be notified about when you want to be notified about lots of files ...
I think that is what inotify was trying to fix (but I haven't had a chance to look at it recently). It reminds me of omirr that we had many years ago - I wonder what happened to it?
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |