lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: which ioctls matter across filesystems
From
Date
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 16:42 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> The problem is that having the server call back a bunch of clients every
> time a file changes does not really scale too well. The current
> dnotify-like proposal therefore specifies that notification is not
> synchronous (i.e. there may be a delay of several seconds), and that the
> server may want to group several notifications into a single callback.

Yah, so what I am asking is why not use inotify for the user-side
component of this system?

Wouldn't the deferring and coalescing of events occur on the server
side? So the server-side stuff would be whatever you need--your own
code using whatever protocol you wanted--but the client-side interface
would be over inotify.

Even if not, I'd be willing to make changes to inotify to accommodate
NFS's needs.

Robert Love


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-29 22:58    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site