From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757340AbYLPCB5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:01:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752110AbYLPCBt (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:01:49 -0500 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:42922 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751856AbYLPCBt (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:01:49 -0500 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fsnotify: use the new open-exec hook for inotify and dnotify Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <1229392365.23523.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081216100418.06CD.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1229392365.23523.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-Id: <20081216105624.06D3.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.42 [ja] Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:01:45 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > they are two different. > > > > 1) Call dnotify_parent() or not > > 2) Use IN_OPEN or IN_ACCESS > > > > The patch description doesn't explain any reason. > > > > > > IOW, IN_ACCESS is usually used by read(). but linux has demand paging > > mechanism. then exec() only do open and mmap. > > actual reading is processed by page fault. > > > > I guess you have the reason of this design choice. > > but it isn't described. > > The original logic was all predicated on my thoughts on how my new > fanotify would want these events and how I felt that open for exec was > worth the separate hook. None of that is useful at this time and in any > case IN_OPEN makes a lot more sense than IN_ACCESS. Since you've got me > looking at these as freestanding patchs I do tend to think that the > easiest thing for now would be to just drop patch 2 and make the call > sites from patch 2 call fsnotify_open directly. it seems make sense. thanks. > I'll resend in the morning a single patch to call directly to > fsnotify_open. (and another single patch to immediately do the rename > that I want done which I'll send as the full normal diff since it'll be > freestanding) you don't need full normal diff. last comment was my mistake. sorry. I only hope patch separation.