On 30/05/18 17:04, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 30-05-18 18:40:27, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Henry Wilson <henry.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30/05/18 14:01, Jan Kara wrote:
Thanks. The patch looks good. I've added it to my tree. BTW, do you plan
on
working on a similar addition to fanotify?
Honza
Ah that's grand, I'm glad to have helped to improve things.
I'm not familiar with fanotify, however a quick look at fanotify_user.c
suggests that a similar approach may be taken by modifying:
if(!fsn_mark) {
...
}
else if (create) {
return -EEXIST;
}
in both fanotify_add_vfsmount_mark() and fanotify_add_inode_mark()
I think that was a yes/no question and I interpret your answer as no?? >>
Anyway, another yes/no question:
Can you write a simple LTP test to verify the new API?
I shall have a go at writing a test, yes.
I reccon Jan was also expecting an actual patch posted to man pages
maintainer (and linux-api, which was not cc'ed on the latest patch).
Ah, I did not know linux-api needed to be cc'ed in.
Yes, and I think Henry is about to post it, just didn't get to it yet.
For reference here is an archive link to the thread on the linux-man archive
https://marc.info/?l=linux-man&m=152769572917930&w=2
About the fanotify change, since fanotify API does have 'flags' separate
from 'mask', I am not sure if FAN_MARK_EXCL_ADD would be the
best flag name?? Perhaps FAN_MARK_CREATE? FAN_MARK_NEW?
not sure.
Yes, for fanotify we could choose a different name.
But also, I did not get a chance to comment about the chosen inotify
flag name that the lexical proximity to IN_EXCL_UNLINK is a bit odd
considering that _EXCL_ mean two completely different things.
Should we maybe re-consider the chosen flag name? >
I'm open to that, I have the patch just sitting in an internal branch for
now. Do you have a better suggestion? Maybe since we already have
IN_MASK_ADD, we could call it IN_MASK_CREATE? And then FAN_MARK_CREATE for
fanotify_mark(2)?
IN_MASK_CREATE seems the most logical to me too.
I'm happy to resubmit the patch if necessary.
Maybe include linux-api in the discussion?
Probably we should, added.
Honza
