On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:07:17AM -0500, Michael C Thompson wrote: > > > Ultimately, the part where we differ most, is the processing of > > > information in > > > fs/dcache.c to give dynamic updates in response to file system activity > > > (such > > > as attaching audit information to an auditable file whose inode just > > > changed). > > > I believe this should be kept seperate and not part of this framework nor > > > Inotify. > > > It's a specific requirement for audit, but not for Inotify. This is one > > > of the places > > > the two systems are functionally different. > > > > I don't think it should be different. If inotify wants to just ignore > > this information, it can. > > Doesn't this mentality bring with it the risk of bloating a framework that > should be as "trim" as possible?
vs. the mentality that since you are doing something just a bit different, you should duplicate lots of other functionality too? no. greg k-h - 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/
