From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45205)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bsd@redhat.com>) id 1ZvvdJ-00030j-KJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:13:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bsd@redhat.com>) id 1ZvvdE-0006w5-H8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:13:53 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55618)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bsd@redhat.com>) id 1ZvvdE-0006vu-BY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:13:48 -0500
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8F9A2C16
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon,  9 Nov 2015 23:13:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
References: <1446595225-23608-1-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
	<1446595225-23608-3-git-send-email-bsd@redhat.com>
	<1446713390.30393.17.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:13:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1446713390.30393.17.camel@redhat.com> (Gerd Hoffmann's message
	of "Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:49:50 +0100")
Message-ID: <jpgpozipxzp.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] usb-mtp: Add support for inotify based
	file monitoring
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> writes:

> On Di, 2015-11-03 at 19:00 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
>> +            case IN_DELETE:
>> +                /*
>> +                 * The kernel issues a IN_IGNORED event
>> +                 * when a dir containing a watchpoint is
>> +                 * deleted
>> +                 */
>
> Wrong place for the comment?

I added this to avoid confusion as to why are we not deleting the watch
during a delete event. I will reword the comment.