On Wed 24-09-14 13:19:47, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:51:55 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Andrew, what do you think about the patch below? Al objected that it > > changes userspace visible behavior some time ago and then he didn't react > > to our explanations... > > Difficult situation. There's some really important information missing > from the changelog: > > - Who cares? Is there some real application which is hurting from > the current situation? If so, who, what, how and why. If not, then > why change anything? I believe Openvz guys hit this in their application but I'll defer to them for more details. > - A description of the userspace API change impact. How did the > interface change? What is the risk of this change causing damage to > real applications? I believe this was covered in the changelog. Without the patch depending on the order of unlinks for hardlinked file you sometimes get events: 4 (IN_ATTRIB) 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) 8000 (IN_IGNORED) and sometimes you get events: 4 (IN_ATTRIB) <possibly more events happening for unlinked file> 8 (IN_CLOSE_WRITE) 400 (IN_DELETE_SELF) 8000 (IN_IGNORED) With the patch you'll always have the second case. So without the patch you don't receive some events if the file has at least 2 hardlinks and then gets unlinked. I think the risk that some application relies on *not* getting those events is pretty low (especially since in the common case of file without hardlinks you will get all those events). Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
