Eric Paris <epa...@parisplace.org> writes: > 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? Sure, I'll take a look at it. I have few questions before look at details: is it an attempt to replace inotify? Does fanotify use only fd? Have the possibility to watch a file by its path, like inotify does, is not a bad idea when the file is not already opened. Thanks, Giuseppe
