From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262093AbVFQVgO (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:36:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262095AbVFQVgN (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:36:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:26794 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262093AbVFQVdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:33:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:33:34 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: John McCutchan , Christoph Hellwig Cc: arnd@arndb.de, rml@novell.com, zab@zabbo.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: [patch] inotify. Message-Id: <20050617143334.41a31707.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050617175605.GB1981@tentacle.dhs.org> References: <1118855899.3949.21.camel@betsy> <42B1BC4B.3010804@zabbo.net> <1118946334.3949.63.camel@betsy> <200506171907.39940.arnd@arndb.de> <20050617175605.GB1981@tentacle.dhs.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John McCutchan wrote: > > This was settled a long time ago. Robert, Andrew, and I had an off-list > discussion months ago, and we all agreed that this was the right > interface for inotify. I don't think I ever really affirmatively agreed to anything. I do recall various things being discussed at various times and various things being changed, but from where I sit it's all spread out and foggy. I certainly remember that good-sounding recommendations which addressed the things which Christoph doesn't like were convincingly shot down by yourself and by Robert, but I don't recall why. Look, this stuff is hard. This is why I've asked you and Robert again and again and again to generate some sort of design doc or FAQ which addresses each of these frequently-asked-questions. So the poor rest of us can look through it and say "oh yeah". Because inotify _is_ a tricky thing, and standard kernel interface designs _don't_ fit it well. So. It's not too late. Please spend an hour and write up the Inofity Implementation FAQ? You probably remember and fully understand what all of our objections are and I know that you have explanations and rebuttals at hand. Please? Something like: q: Why does it use an ioctl multiplexer a: Because ... etc... I haven't done a detailed review of the patch in months and I intend to do another soon. That FAQ will help! When I ask more silly questions we can update it, so those questions will never again be asked. I know it's unusual process-wise, but inotify is an unusual feature.