> > David, > > > > I am interested to know how you envision filesystem notifications would > > look with this interface. > > > > fanotify can certainly benefit from providing a ring buffer interface to read > > events. > > > > From what I have seen, a common practice of users is to monitor mounts > > (somehow) and place FAN_MARK_MOUNT fanotify watches dynamically. > > It'd be good if those users can use a single watch mechanism/API for > > watching the mount namespace and filesystem events within mounts. > > > > A similar usability concern is with sb_notify and FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM. > > It provides users with two complete different mechanisms to watch error > > and filesystem events. That is generally not a good thing to have. > > > > I am not asking that you implement fs_notify() before merging sb_notify() > > and I understand that you have a use case for sb_notify(). > > I am asking that you show me the path towards a unified API (how a > > typical program would look like), so that we know before merging your > > new API that it could be extended to accommodate fsnotify events > > where the final result will look wholesome to users. > > Are you sure we want to combine notification about file changes etc. with > administrator-type notifications about the filesystem? To me these two > sound like rather different (although sometimes related) things. > Well I am sure that ring buffer for fanotify events would be useful, so seeing that David is proposing a generic notification mechanism, I wanted to know how that mechanism could best share infrastructure with fsnotify. But apart from that I foresee the questions from users about why the mount notification API and filesystem events API do not have better integration. The way I see it, the notification queue can serve several classes of notifications and fsnotify could be one of those classes (at least FAN_CLASS_NOTIF fits nicely to the model). Thanks, Amir.
