> > > - there are many precedents of new system calls just to add dfd > > > support (fchmodat, execveat, linkat, mkdirat, ....) > > > - there are also a few new system calls that were added to make the > > > life of a programmer easier even though the same was already possible > > > with existing system calls (close_range, process_madvise, pidfd_getfd, > > > mount_setattr, ...) > > > > All those new syscalls add new functionality/security/performance. > > So does inotify_add_watch_at(). > > On the other hand, fanotify reduces performance by adding complexity > and overhead - more system calls necessary, increased lookup overhead > due to variable-length keys instead of 32-bit integers. > Technical arguments of performance need to be backed up by performance numbers from real life workloads. I am not inventing this stuff as I go. This is how kernel development works. > > If you think they were added to make the life of the programmer easier > > you did not understand them. > > Oh please. Don't be so arrogant. I will try. Please try as well to accept a different POV. Thanks, Amir.
