From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: remove dnotify thread code Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:35:48 +0000 Message-ID: <20090110013548.GE1972@shareable.org> References: <1231424128-5598-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <524f69650901080623s228c343eka791c089c878167@mail.gmail.com> <20090109000708.GC12848@shareable.org> <20090108202824.69fcac39@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steve French , linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:50924 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755531AbZAJBfv (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:35:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090108202824.69fcac39@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jeff Layton wrote: > CIFS has a call that tells the server to notify the client when a > directory changes (NT_TRANSACT_NOTIFY_CHANGE). This, in principle would > allow us to implement a subset of inotify/dnotify across the network. > I'm not sure which kind we'd be able to implement (probably "queued > at best). With oplocks you can implement "lease" (and therefore "coherent") for file data reads and writes, at least. I'm not sure if it also covers attributes and directory operations. You would use NT_TRANSACT_NOTIFY_CHANGE for "queued" when possible, because it's much cheaper and intended for this, although you could use oplocks (expensively) for this too. -- Jamie