From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events. Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20081118131937.GC16944@lst.de> References: <20081116232450.GA13547@ioremap.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , Robert Love , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:59:11AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > NAK. If we are going to do this -- and I leave the security > discussions to others more knowlegeable on that score than me -- then > the API design should be better than this. The current design is a > hack. Why exclude rename events? Why re-use the cookie field? The > only answers I can guess at are that the current patch is less work to > write. IMO, there are (much) better design possibilities, using > inotify1(), as I suggested earlier in this thread. Yes, this kind of thing should be enable using an flag to inotify1, and be consistant even for rename. Doing it as a flag to inotify1 also has the advantage to be able to return an -EPERM when the feature is requested but not allowed instead of letting applications that assume it silently fail. -- 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