On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 09:10:09PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:55 PM Ahelenia Ziemiańska > <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > @@ -1209,18 +1204,20 @@ long do_splice(struct file *in, loff_t *off_in, struct file *out, > > > > ret = splice_file_to_pipe(in, opipe, &offset, len, flags); > > > > - if (ret > 0) > > - fsnotify_access(in); > > - > > if (!off_in) > > in->f_pos = offset; > > else > > *off_in = offset; > > + } else > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > - return ret; > > - } > > + if (ret > 0) > > + fsnotify_modify(out); > > +noaccessout: > > + if (ret > 0) > > + fsnotify_access(in); > > > As I wrote, I don't like this special case. > I prefer that we generate double IN_MODIFY than > having to maintain unreadable code. > > Let's see what Jan has to say about this. Yes, in principle I definitely agree, but I don't know what the official policy is on (effectively-)spurious/duplicate events; neither the kernel documentation nor the manual speak to the reliability of the signal, so I defaulted to the variant I thought to be correcter, if filthy.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
