Messages in this thread | | | From | Tvrtko Ursulin <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7 | Date | Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:15:53 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday 07 Oct 2010 17:10:46 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On Wednesday 06 Oct 2010 22:45:13 Linus Torvalds wrote: > [snip] > > > And yes, that's probably as exciting as it gets, which is just fine by > > me. This should be the last -rc, I'm not seeing any reason to keep > > delaying a real release. There was still more changes to > > drivers/gpu/drm than I really would have hoped for, but they all look > > harmless and good. Famous last words. > > Hi Linus, > > Please see http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128618485204253&w=2 > > I have sent this proposed bugfix several times now but no one is picking it > up and Eric seems to have disappeared. It would be suboptimal to release > 2.6.36 with a core fanotify feature non-functional.
Unfortunately I have another showstopper. Sadly I missed it until now because internally we were more worried of issues which were kind of direct problems for us and I went to deep instead of spending more time reviewing it breath first.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=08ae89380a8210a9965d04083e1de78cb8bca4b1
Priority argument was dropped from the fanotify_init syscall, and since it is a syscall once released it is set in stone. Without the priority argument, how are multiple clients supposed to be ordered?
Co-existence between multiple clients was something which was supposed to be designed in from the start. Use cases like hierarchical storage management, anti-malware and content indexing should all be able to co-exist. Without a priority argument I do not see how it can be assured HSM sees the perm event before anti-malware, and content indexing after both of them? If there was any discussion about dropping priority I missed it. :(
Tvrtko
Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United Kingdom. Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.
| |