From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: inotify/sysfs Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:00:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20140331200019.GQ18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <53342CA0.905@sardemff7.net> <20140331185202.GP18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Quentin Glidic , linux-fsdevel , Michael Kerrisk To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:47193 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751077AbaCaUAW (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:00:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:13:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > Linus, what do you think about flat-out refusing to create the watches on > > filesystems that can't support them? > > Well, you seem to think that NFS and other network filesystems can't > support them. > > But they can. It's just that they'll only trigger on *local* changes, > not on remote changes. But if you're doing a file manager on a > workstation, triggering on local changes is generally exactly what you > want. ... except when that workstation has e.g. /var/spool/mail NFS-mounted, with MTA running on server. Or "wait until the job on server puts its results into this file". And yes, I've seen requests along those lines ;-/ Cluster filesystems have the same issue...