On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 09:08:18PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 7:26 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon 12-07-21 16:00:54, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Just a brainstorming idea: How about creating new event FAN_RENAME that
> > would report two DFIDs (if it is cross directory rename)?
>
> I like the idea, but it would have to be two DFID_NAME is case of
> FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME and also for same parent rename
> to be consistent.
I don't have much to add to this conversation, but I'm just curious here.
If we do require two separate DFID_NAME record objects in the case of cross
directory rename operations, how does an event listener distinguish the
difference between which is which i.e. moved_{from/to}? To me, this
implies that the event listener is expected to rely on specific
supplemental information object ordering, which to my knowledge is a
contract that we had always wanted to avoid drawing.
/M
