On Dec 2 2007 22:56, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> We probably want to hear related usages as well - what *besides* >> A/V would be interested? Indexing services? > Indexing services would probably benefit much more from a recursive-aware inotify, though that has its own sort of problems to solve first.
>Well... I'd really like to know what A/V people are trying to do. > >Indexing services are really different, and doable with recursive >m-time Jan is preparing... > m-time <=> modification time? What am I preparing? I am actually on a freeze, because I really do not know what to make of the situation with the static LSM interface. There is a grave problem with chaining, because you cannot specify the activation order of one or more LSMs with compiled-in code! Some kernel Makefiles even contain hints "this depends on link order" (e.g. net/ipv6/netfilter/Makefile) - and I bet for sure that this will also be the case for LSM. No thanks. While we are at it, consider the hypothethical case of a production server, and the boss tells you to switch to $ThatLSM, with no downtime. After all, it worked when $Company switched to $ThisLSM with Linux 2.6.x ∀ x<24. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
