Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] inotify 0.14
From: John McCutchan <ttb@tentacle.dhs.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Robert Love <rml@novell.com>, v13@priest.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       gamin-list@gnome.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk,
       akpm@osdl.org, bkonrath@redhat.com, greg@kroah.com
In-Reply-To: <20041018112807.3a7edbf7.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <1097808272.4009.0.camel@vertex>
	 <200410180246.27654.v13@priest.com> <1098057129.5497.107.camel@localhost>
	 <20041018112807.3a7edbf7.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1098066043.16758.4.camel@vertex>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:20:43 -0400
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1095
Lines: 26

On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 21:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:09 -0400 Robert Love <rml@novell.com> wrote:
> >
> > It should make dnotify a configuration option, controlled via
> > CONFIG_DNOTIFY.
> 
> But you have removed the sysctl that allows enabling and disabling of
> dnotify at run time.  And you create setattr_mask_dnotify for which I can
> find no caller.  And make gratuitous changes to the current dnotify code.
> (I point this last out as it just increases the size of the patch for no
> purpose.)

There may be bugs with how dnotify was made optional. I will accept a
patch that fixes this :)

It is debatable whether or not the inotify patch should carry this
dnotify config patch as well. I don't see it being that large of a
burden on maintaining or using the patch that includes the dnotify
config changes. 

John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/