On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:50 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Pushed the work to fanotify_name branch. > > > Let me know if you want me to post v3. > > > > So I went through the patches - had only minor comments for most of them. > > Can you post the next revision by email and I'll pickup at least the > > obvious preparatory patches to my tree. Thanks! > > > > Will do. > Most of your comments were minor, but the last comments on > FAN_REPORT_NAME patch send me to do some homework. > I know this patch is for next next release, but I was just investigating so wanted to publish the results. For the records, your question about the FAN_REPORT_NAME patch was: "... this seems to be somewhat duplicating the functionality of __fsnotify_parent(). Can't we somehow join these paths?" I remembered that I started with this approach and moved to taking name snapshots inside fanotify event handler for a reason, but did not remember what it was. So I went digging back and found that I wanted to avoid the situation where in mount/sb marks events are reported in two flavors, one with name and one without name. I ended up with something that works, but the logic is quite hard to follow and to document. So decided it is best to go back to fsnotify_parent() approach and let the two flavors of events be reported for sb/mount marks. I pushed the end result to branch fanotify_name and adjusted the LTP test to expect the extra events. I will see how that ends up looking in the man page. Thanks, Amir.
