From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Leeder Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: <4A7AAE89.20205@sophos.com> References: <1248466429.3567.82.camel@localhost> <20090805020534.GB1354@ucw.cz> <200908051746.17903.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> <20090806101059.GD31370@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "david-gFPdbfVZQbY@public.gmane.org" , "Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org" , "a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org" , "malware-list-h+Im9A44IAFcMpApZELgcQ@public.gmane.org" , "mrkafk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "aviro-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "jengelh-nopoi9nDyk+ELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org" , "hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org" , "alexl-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "jcm-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "alan-qBU/x9rampVanCEyBjwyrvXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org" , "arjan-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org" To: Pavel Machek Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090806101059.GD31370-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: malware-list-bounces-h+Im9A44IAFcMpApZELgcQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: malware-list-bounces-h+Im9A44IAFcMpApZELgcQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2009-08-05 17:46:16, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:05:34 Pavel Machek wrote: >> Just to make sure you haven't missed this - it is not that they have to >> complete the whole operation before the timeout period (since you mention >> realtime/mlock I suspect this is what you think?), but _during_ the operation >> they have to show that they are active by sending something like keep alive >> messages. >> >> Or you are worried about failing to meet even that on a loaded system? There >> has to be something like this otherwise hung userspace client would kill the >> whole system. > > Of course, I'm worried about failing to meet this on loaded > system. And the fact that I _have_ to worry about that means that > interface is ugly/broken. You mean that in 5 seconds, you won't have any point when you can tell the kernel, "I'm still working"? -- Douglas Leeder