> > If anything, I would rather introduce FAN_IGNORE_MARK.
> > The reasoning is that users may think of this "ignore mark"
> > as a separate mark from the "inode mark", so on this "mark" the
> > meaning of ON_CHILD flags would be pretty clear.
>
> Well, yes, you are speaking about effectively the same flag just under a
> different name :) I agree my name is poor so I'm happy if we pick another
> one. The only small reservation I have against the name FAN_IGNORE_MARK is
> that we would now have to explain in the manpage a new concept of ignore
> mark and tell this is just a new name for ignore mask which looks a bit
> silly and perhaps confusing to developers used to the old naming.
Right. here is a first go at that (along with a name change):
"FAN_MARK_IGNORE - This flag has a similar effect as setting the
FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK flag - the events in mask shall be added
to or removed from the ignore mask.
Unlike the FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK flag, this flag also has the effect
that the FAN_EVENT_ON_CHILD and FAN_ONDIR flags take effect on the
ignored mask, because with FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK, those flags
have no effect. Note that unlike the FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK flag,
unless FAN_ONDIR flag is set with FAN_MARK_IGNORE, events on
directories will not be ignored."
What I like about this name is that the command
fanotify_mark(FAN_MARK_ADD | FAN_MARK_IGNORE,
FAN_MARK_OPEN | FAN_EVENT_ON_CHILD, ...
sounds like spoken English ("add a rule to ignore open events (also)
on children").
Please let me know if you agree with that flag name.
Apropos man page, after I am done with that, I will try to shake the dust
from all the man page update patches sitting in my queue and re-submit them.
Thanks,
Amir.
