From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add generic uevent infrastructure Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:17:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20131119111719.GA25036@quack.suse.cz> References: <1384785520-607-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20131118162045.GA3268@infradead.org> <20131119013621.GH11434@dastard> <20131119102501.GA5107@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , Dmitry Monakhov , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50707 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751464Ab3KSLRW (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:17:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131119102501.GA5107@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue 19-11-13 02:25:01, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:36:21PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I certain agree with that. I'd also like to see ENOSPC notifications > > as that would obliviate the need for distros like RHEL to ship > > systemtap scripts to generate such notifications for admins.... > > The ENOSPC case would be a natural tag on to Jan's quota notification, > and I have a vague memory that someone started implementing it or > at least talked about it. Yes, quota netlink interface is technically very easy to extend to also provide ENOSPC notifications. It's just that the name of generic netlink family is 'VFS_DQUOT' so ENOSPC notifications do not fit very well with that name but it isn't too bad either. > > > Also Jan Kara has done quota netlink notifications a while ago, which > > > fit into the same sort of niche. > > > > The question I'm asking is whether we really want a new interface > > for these events? Shouldn't we really try to use an existing > > filesystem event interface for generating these events > > Good quetion, and the quota netlink notifications would be the natural > place to tag on at least some of this. > > > (e.g. > > fanotify) rather than adding yet another disjoint filesystem event > > interface to the kernel? > > It needs to be a per-fs interface, and as Dmitry pointed out fanotify > is a per-file one. I agree fanotify is really a bad fit. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR