On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:34:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> I looked at dnotify_flush, they remove markers on an inode. >> But then it also checks for filp to match. So I am not sure >> whether skipping dnotify_flush for O_PATH descriptor have any impact. We >> can't use O_PATH descriptor for dnotify fcntl any way. So in >> dnotify_flush we will not match the filp. >> >> Viro, >> >> Any reason why we skip dnotify_flush ? > > See your last sentence above - why bother finding the mark, scanning the > list, etc. when we know that there won't be any matches? So, am I correct to understand that O_PATH has no interaction with dnotify? Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
