On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:52 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> To be honest, I don't really see that this is in any way better than
> what we had before. Yes, two different pieces of code actually use hooks
> in similar places in the VFS code. But this 'infrastructure' just to
> share those hooks is overkill as far as I can tell. It really isn't any
> better than having both inotify and audit hooks side by side where we
> can actually see what's going on at a glance. In fact, it's worse.
I think what makes this patch look superfluous is that Chris added a set
of wrappers for dnotify, too.
In the inotify patch, the fsnotify wrappers call directly into the
inotify and dnotify interfaces and they do consolidate code and clean
things up. I added fsnotify at hch's request.
Now that audit is coming along, fsnotify makes even more sense.
I would like to share some more code at a lower level, though, as you
pointed out.
I planned to look at redoing dnotify entirely on top of inotify, once
inotify is in the kernel proper, for example.
Robert Love
-
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/
