On Tue 09-09-14 02:27:12, Al Viro wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/762
> I agree that it changes user-visible ABI and I agree the behavior
> isn't really specified in the manpage.
Shouldn't we start with putting the expected behavior into the manpage
before patching the code? I am missing a patch for man7/inotify.7.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:01:56PM +0400, Andrey Vagin wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/219
>
> fd = inotify_init1(IN_NONBLOCK);
> deleted = open(path, O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0666);
> link(path, path_link);
>
> wd_deleted = inotify_add_watch(fd, path_link, IN_ALL_EVENTS);
>
> unlink(path);
> unlink(path_link);
>
> printf(" --- unlink\n");
> read_evetns(fd);
>
> close(deleted);
> printf(" --- close\n");
> read_evetns(fd);
>
> Without this patch:
> --- unlink
> 4 (IN_ATTRIB)
> 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF)
> 8000 (IN_IGNORED)
> --- close
> FAIL
>
> With this patch:
> --- unlink
> 4 (IN_ATTRIB)
> 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF)
> --- close
> 8 (IN_CLOSE_WRITE)
> 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF)
> 8000 (IN_IGNORED)
> PASS
Shouldn't the second IN_DELETE_SELF occur before
--- close ?
Why is IN_CLOSE_WRITE created?
Best regards
Heinrich Schuchardt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
