lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] inotify.
    Date
    On Dunnersdag 16 Juni 2005 20:25, Robert Love wrote:
    > +Q: Why a device node?
    > +
    > +A: The second biggest problem with dnotify is that the user
    > +interface sucks ass.  Signals are a terrible, terrible interface
    > +for file notification.  Or for anything, for that matter.  The
    > +idea solution, from all perspectives, is a file descriptor based
    > +one that allows basic file I/O and poll/select.  Obtaining the
    > +fd and managing the watches could of been done either via a
    > +device file or a family of new system calls.  We decided to
    > +implement a device file because adding three or four new system
    > +calls that mirrored open, close, and ioctl seemed silly.  A
    > +character device makes sense from user-space and was easy to
    > +implement inside of the kernel.

    Sorry to bring up a topic that should have been settled a long time ago.

    I found that the interface consisting of
    - open a handle
    - add a file descriptor with an event mask to handle
    - remove a file/watch descriptor from handle
    - wait on handle, get events
    - close handle

    in inotify is _very_ similar to how epoll is represented to user
    space. Is there a good reason that epoll is a set of syscalls while
    inotify is a character device, or is one of them simply wrong?

    Arnd <><
    -
    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: 2005-06-17 19:14    [W:0.024 / U:29.964 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site