Re: [PATCH] fs: don't remove inotify watchers from alive inode-s

[Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.debian@gmx.de>]

On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762
 > I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior
 > isn't really specified in the manpage.

Shouldn't we start with putting the expected behavior into the manpage 
before patching the code? I am missing a patch for man7/inotify.7.

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/219
 >
 > 	fd = inotify_init1(IN_NONBLOCK);
 > 	deleted = open(path, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0666);
 > 	link(path, path_link);
 >
 > 	wd_deleted = inotify_add_watch(fd, path_link, IN_ALL_EVENTS);
 >
 > 	unlink(path);
 > 	unlink(path_link);
 >
 > 	printf(" --- unlink\n");
 > 	read_evetns(fd);
 >
 > 	close(deleted);
 > 	printf(" --- close\n");
 > 	read_evetns(fd);
 >
 > Without this patch:
 >   --- unlink
 > 4	(IN_ATTRIB)
 > 400	(IN_DELETE_SELF)
 > 8000	(IN_IGNORED)
 >   --- close
 > FAIL
 >
 > With this patch:
 >   --- unlink
 > 4	(IN_ATTRIB)
 > 400	(IN_DELETE_SELF)
 >   --- close
 > 8	(IN_CLOSE_WRITE)
 > 400	(IN_DELETE_SELF)
 > 8000	(IN_IGNORED)
 > PASS

Shouldn't the second IN_DELETE_SELF occur before
--- close ?
Why is IN_CLOSE_WRITE created?

Best regards

Heinrich Schuchardt