Hi Al,
Could you look at this patch once again? The first version changes
behavior for all cases. And I agree that it's a reason to reject it.
This version makes behaviour predictable and equal for all cases.
Do you think it can't be accepted too?
Thanks.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:35:23PM +0400
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:45:52 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> > With the patch you'll always have the second case. So without the patch you
> > don't receive some events if the file has at least 2 hardlinks and then
> > gets unlinked. I think the risk that some application relies on *not*
> > getting
> >
On Thu 25-09-14 10:30:10, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 24-09-14 13:19:47, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it
> > > changes userspace visible behavior some ti
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:30:10AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 24-09-14 13:19:47, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it
> > > changes userspace visible
On Wed 24-09-14 13:19:47, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it
> > changes userspace visible behavior some time ago and then he didn't react
> > to our explanations.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it
> changes userspace visible behavior some time ago and then he didn't react
> to our explanations...
Difficult situation. There's some really important infor
Hello,
Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it
changes userspace visible behavior some time ago and then he didn't react
to our explanations...
Honza
On Fri 19-09-14 19:45:16, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> Cu
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:45:16PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero. But
> other detries can be linked with this inode.
>
...
>
> v2: generate IN_DELETE_SELF when the last link to the file is removed
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara
Revie
On Thu 18-09-14 01:01:22, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> From c7a79bccca1aac70f5e50fb145942b932eca79ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andrey Vagin
> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:35:24 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH] fs: don't remove inotify watchers from alive inode-s (v2)
>
> Currently watchers are removed in den
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:12:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 13-09-14 18:15:09, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762
> > > I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior
> > > isn't really specified in
On Sat 13-09-14 18:15:09, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762
> > I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior
> > isn't really specified in the manpage.
>
> Shouldn't we start with putting the expected beha
On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762
> I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior
> isn't really specified in the manpage.
Shouldn't we start with putting the expected behavior into the manpage
before patching the code? I am missing a
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:54:39AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > > Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero.
> > > But other detries can be linked with this inode. For
On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero.
> > But other detries can be linked with this inode. For example if we
> > create two hard links, open the first one and s
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero.
> But other detries can be linked with this inode. For example if we
> create two hard links, open the first one and set a watcher on the
> second one. Then if we remo
On Mon 08-09-14 16:01:56, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero.
> But other detries can be linked with this inode. For example if we
> create two hard links, open the first one and set a watcher on the
> second one. Then if we remove both links, t
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> Currently watchers are removed in dentry_iput(), if n_link is zero.
> But other detries can be linked with this inode. For example if we
> create two hard links, open the first one and set a watcher on the
> second one. Then if we remo
17 matches
Mail list logo
