From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from helmsgagent01.f-secure.com ([193.110.108.21]:42058 "EHLO helmsgagent01.f-secure.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726479AbeJIPGO (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:06:14 -0400 From: Marko Rauhamaa To: Jan Kara CC: Amir Goldstein , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: self describing event metadata References: <20181008101229.7923-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20181008115440.GB21682@quack2.suse.cz> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:29:55 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20181008115440.GB21682@quack2.suse.cz> (Jan Kara's message of "Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:54:40 +0200") Message-ID: <87o9c3d1cc.fsf@drapion.f-secure.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Kara : > That makes some sense but I'd really like to see how you apply this to > other things because e.g. with PID vs TGID I don't really see the need > for any flags. It might be interesting to have PID vs TGID flag there > for consistency once we really start to send them for other things but > I don't see a need to rush it now. Plus we are at rc7 already so we > are out of time for changes going to the coming merge window. A general side note: the PID is often useless as the process can die before the fa-notification reaches the handler. I wish there were a CLOSE_PERM event that held the closing process in existence (as a zombie if nothing else) until the event has been processed. Marko