From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [take 3] Use pid in inotify events. Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:30:19 +0300 Message-ID: <20081124073018.GC10119@ioremap.net> References: <20081120230612.GB6536@ioremap.net> <200811211939.46812.arnd@arndb.de> <20081122093749.GA12543@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: John McCutchan Cc: Arnd Bergmann , mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , Robert Love , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hi John. On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:08:05PM -0800, John McCutchan (john-jueV0HHMeujJJrXXpGQQMAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org) wrote: > At this point I don't really want to see changes made to inotify. But, > for arguments sake, why not something like inotify_init1 that takes a > flag EXTENDED_EVENT which causes a larger event structure to be used. > Something like, > > struct inotify_event_extended > { > s32 wd; > u32 mask; > u32 cookie; > u32 data[4]; > char path[0]; > } > > The data array could be used to store arbitrary extra information, > specified by flags. What will happen when above array is not enough to store needed info? Although I do not see any reason to send start/offset for the IO itself, but if it will be decided to do so, above array already is not large enough. I think I will cook up preliminary patch to add nested attributes into event structure like I described previously in the thread to get people involved with working example. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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