Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpeguPTQ00zVjpwVQ4R8mEqE3aijCzNMAz6Wvr56xE-jfJag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJfpeguPTQ00zVjpwVQ4R8mEqE3aijCzNMAz6Wvr56xE-jfJag@mail.gmail.com> <155905621951.1304.5956310120238620025.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <155905622921.1304.8775688192987027250.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] General notification queue with user mmap()'able ring buffer [ver #13]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <29054.1559135525.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 14:12:05 +0100
Message-ID: <29055.1559135525@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:

> Would it make sense to use relayfs for the implementation of the
> mapped ring buffer?

Note that I reposted the notification patches under the correct cover note
later.  Could you repost your response there.

Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Mount, FS, Block and Keyrings notifications

David