Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761039AbZLJQeC (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:34:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760981AbZLJQeB (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:34:01 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:49278 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760801AbZLJQeA (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:34:00 -0500 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Organization: SUSE Labs To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fsnotify/vfsmount: add fsnotify fields to struct vfsmount Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:31:42 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31.5-0.1-desktop; KDE/4.3.1; i686; ; ) Cc: Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk References: <20091203055315.21918.83562.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20091204153925.GA17062@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20091204153925.GA17062@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200912101731.43050.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1255 Lines: 26 On Friday 04 December 2009 16:39:25 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > What's the rationale for adding them? The idea is to provide a mechanism to watch for "all events", but in a namespace aware way: for that, a process registers interest in all mount points it can reach. With the previous hack, a global "I want it all" flag, per-namespace listeners were not possible. Root can use bind mounts onto themselves (e.g., mount --bind /foo/bar /foo/bar) to watch arbitrary directories with the per-mount-point mechanism. Mount as user will open up additional use cases. It would be nice to be able to register interest in all events below a directory which is not a mount point, too. The problem with that is that the number of cached inodes below a given directory could be huge -- and we would have to visit them all atomically in order to "mark" them, which is not feasible. The per-mount-point mechanism will eventually give us *almost* the same, and so I believe it's good enough. Thanks, Andreas -- 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/