From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754975AbZHFKVA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:21:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754818AbZHFKU7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:20:59 -0400 Received: from pmx1.sophos.com ([213.31.172.16]:38428 "EHLO pmx1.sophos.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754808AbZHFKU6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 06:20:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7AAE89.20205@sophos.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:20:57 +0100 From: Douglas Leeder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: Tvrtko Ursulin , Eric Paris , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "malware-list@dmesg.printk.net" , "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" , "greg@kroah.com" , "jcm@redhat.com" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "arjan@infradead.org" , "david@lang.hm" , "jengelh@medozas.de" , "aviro@redhat.com" , "mrkafk@gmail.com" , "alexl@redhat.com" , "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "hch@infradead.org" , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" , "mmorley@hcl.in" Subject: Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches References: <1248466429.3567.82.camel@localhost> <20090805020534.GB1354@ucw.cz> <200908051746.17903.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> <20090806101059.GD31370@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20090806101059.GD31370@elf.ucw.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=B1498EA3 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Mercury/Servers/Sophos(Release 7.0.3|September 26, 2007) at 06/08/2009 11:20:58, Serialize by Router on Mercury/Servers/Sophos(Release 7.0.3|September 26, 2007) at 06/08/2009 11:20:58, Serialize complete at 06/08/2009 11:20:58 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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