From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262052AbVFQSiJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:38:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262053AbVFQSiJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:38:09 -0400 Received: from peabody.ximian.com ([130.57.169.10]:11419 "EHLO peabody.ximian.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262052AbVFQSiE (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:38:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] inotify. From: Robert Love To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Zach Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , John McCutchan , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20050617182826.GA20250@infradead.org> References: <1118855899.3949.21.camel@betsy> <42B1BC4B.3010804@zabbo.net> <1118946334.3949.63.camel@betsy> <200506171907.39940.arnd@arndb.de> <20050617175404.GA19463@infradead.org> <1119032213.3949.124.camel@betsy> <20050617182826.GA20250@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:38:06 -0400 Message-Id: <1119033486.3949.135.camel@betsy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 19:28 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > You are using ioctl as an really bad syscall multiplexer. You're > not using the file descriptor it's called on at all, so it does not qualify > as a valid ioctl() usage even under the most lax rules. We provide two different ioctl commands, it is not a bad multiplexer. We have discussed this before. We do use the fd. It maps back to the inotify device. > Also you claimed the resource shortage for the proposed architecture > with just a single syscall, aka one watch per fd without showing any > reasons why that would be true, in fact by any means there's no reason > to believe file descriptors are a rare ressource in a modern Linux system. It is not implausible to believe that a system might have the default maximum for file descriptors (not very high) but allow a _much_ greater number of inotify watches (32k, say). That is our rationale. I hear what you are saying, I understand it, and at the end of the day I disagree. I appreciate your input, but I feel otherwise. > I don't care whether you adopt my interface proposal or a different passable > one, but the current one is not acceptable at all. Everything to you is "really bad" and "totally unacceptable". Chill out. Stop ranting so much and enjoy life. Robert Love