On Thu 17-03-22 15:03:03, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > 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.
Yes, with this explanation I like the new name. Thanks for the effort!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
