On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscriv...@gnu.org> wrote:
> at the moment inotify permits to add new files to be watched using their > path. There are situations where the file path is not know but a > descriptor is available. It would be desiderable to have the > possibility to use the inotify system even in these (rare) cases. I don't think specifying the inode in question by fd is fundamentally a bad idea. It is the reason I decided to use fd's when registering event's in the upcoming fanotify rather than pathnames. I do however question if we really want to add yet another syscall for inotify. We've already seen that inotify is very hard to expand. The fixed message length, lack of information a number of users want, and difficultly in extending those things make me reticent to support more extentions. Personally I'd rather see us/you move to fanotify which is (I hope) extensible forever. If only I could get networking people to review it. Have you looked at fanotify? I'm going to repost the series in a couple minutes, maybe you could tell me if fanotify might work for you?
