On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:49:23PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:25 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 05:34:01PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Jan,
> > >
> > > For v3 I went with a straight forward approach.
> > > Filesystems that have fsnotify_{create,mkdir} hooks also get
> > > explicit fsnotify_{unlink,rmdir} hooks.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, this approach is orthogonal to whatever changes Al is
> > > planning for recursive tree remove code, because in many of the
> > > cases, the hooks are added at the entry point for the recursive
> > > tree remove.
> > >
> > > After looking closer at all the filesystems that were converted to
> > > simple_remove in v2, I decided to exempt another 3 filesystems from
> > > the fsnotify delete hooks: hypfs,qibfs and aafs.
> > > hypfs is pure cleanup (*). qibfs and aafs can remove dentry on user
> > > configuration change, but they do not generate create events, so it
> > > is less likely that users depend on the delete events.
> > >
> > > That leaves configfs the only filesystem that gets the new delete hooks
> > > even though it does not have create hooks.
> >
> > why doesn't configfs have create hooks? That's what userspace does in
> > configfs, shouldn't it be notified about it? Keeping it "unequal" seems
> > odd to me.
> >
>
> So it's not exactly that configfs has no create hooks at all.
> For "normal" filesystems mkdir (for example) is only possible
> by mkdir(2) syscall and there is create hook in vfs_mkdir().
Ah, ok, missed that.
thanks,
greg k-h
