From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756352AbZICU0D (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756252AbZICU0B (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19701 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756163AbZICU0A (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:26:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] task_struct: add PF_NONOTIFY for fanotify to use From: Eric Paris Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@linux.intel.com, hch@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <20090828223626.GA8283@ioremap.net> References: <20090828185542.8014.22791.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20090828223626.GA8283@ioremap.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:25:49 -0400 Message-Id: <1252009549.2425.42.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 02:55:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com) wrote: > > Since fanotify opens file descriptors inside the kernel for it's listeners > > it needs a way to make sure that 2 fanotify listeners, both which listen to > > open events do not continuously see each others open events (and get into a > > livelock reporting on each other's activity). This fix is to create a new > > tast_struct flags called PF_NONOTIFY. If this flag is set in a task no > > fanotify events will be generated for that task. fanotify will set the > > flag before and open call and will clear it immediately after. So this patch isn't actually needed, I thought the fsnotify_open() call was deeper than it is. I'm going to drop this particular patch. Can I take silence on the list as a lack of disagreement? I'd like to start putting these into linux-next starting tomorrow. Obviously I'd like to see the networking definitions approved and taken by davem, I'd like to see the FMODE_ change approved and taken by viro, but if you two would like me to push it directly I'd be happy to. Davem, maybe you'd rather my af_fanotify was somewhere inside net/ instead of in fs/notify/fanotify? I'd love to get some review here, but noone onlist is excited enough to step up. (I have numerous people who have privately claimed they intend to use this stuff, so i promise it won't be dead code.) I'm ready to start committing and adding features, anyone telling me no? -Eric