From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events. Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:41:44 +0300 Message-ID: <20081122094144.GB12543@ioremap.net> References: <20081120230612.GB6536@ioremap.net> <200811211939.46812.arnd@arndb.de> <4927B0D5.4020907@davidnewall.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4927B0D5.4020907-KzQzY1MbaKjAHznzqCTclw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Newall Cc: linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 05:42:21PM +1030, David Newall (davidn-KzQzY1MbaKjAHznzqCTclw@public.gmane.org) wrote: > Why not require local access to use the same mechanism as remote, i.e. > by "network mounting" the data on the local machine, too. That way > there's no confusion over where the change originated nor who's copy > must be invalidated. There is always a possibility that some application will access given data directly and not via mounted partition, plus I have to patch server's kernel with out of the tree modules, so intestead I could implement lsm-based module to catch access and embed cache coherency protocol there. Inotify in this case is the simplest approach. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756928AbYKVJly (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:41:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753879AbYKVJlq (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:41:46 -0500 Received: from kandzendo.ru ([195.178.208.66]:59986 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753536AbYKVJlp (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:41:45 -0500 Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:41:44 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: David Newall Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events. Message-ID: <20081122094144.GB12543@ioremap.net> References: <20081120230612.GB6536@ioremap.net> <200811211939.46812.arnd@arndb.de> <4927B0D5.4020907@davidnewall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4927B0D5.4020907@davidnewall.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 05:42:21PM +1030, David Newall (davidn@davidnewall.com) wrote: > Why not require local access to use the same mechanism as remote, i.e. > by "network mounting" the data on the local machine, too. That way > there's no confusion over where the change originated nor who's copy > must be invalidated. There is always a possibility that some application will access given data directly and not via mounted partition, plus I have to patch server's kernel with out of the tree modules, so intestead I could implement lsm-based module to catch access and embed cache coherency protocol there. Inotify in this case is the simplest approach. -- Evgeniy Polyakov