[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: No error when inotify_add_watch(/an/NFS/file)
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:20:55PM +0000, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Dear Experts,
>> NFS doesn't work with inotify (and it looks like it can't, certainly not
>> before NFS v4.1). However, if I give an NFS filename to
>> inotify_add_watch(), I don't get an error.
>> If it indicated an error in this case then I could easily fall back to some
>> sort of polling. Without an error, I need some other way to detect NFS
>> (and any other non-inotify-compatible filesystems).
>> Any thoughts?
> The one reason I can think of that you might want that behavior is if
> you know you only access a given piece of the filesystem from one client
> at a time, and you still want inotify to work in that situation.

That's a good point.

> (I'm assuming inotify still notifies you of changes that are made on the same
> client.)

A quick test suggest that it does.

> But maybe you could handle that case by allowing inotify_add_watch() in
> the case where the nfs filesystem was mounted with the "nolock" option,
> and failing it otherwise, and telling people to turn on nolock if
> they're sure they know what they're doing.

I'm not sure what your rationale for proposing that is, and I don't
think it helps in my scenario; a user wants their inotify-using
application to "just work", not to be told to "sudo re-mount".

I suppose that I just need some way to determine whether I will get
all, some, or none of the events that I've asked for.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-24 21:15    [W:0.038 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site