On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 04:03:35AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Well you still have your sense of humour... > > I've never understood why you think it's about the file manager / > desktop, or why you so strongly dislike the feature. It originated > there historically, but that is not it's primary use. > > The implementation, sure, but you seem to dislike the very *principle* > of subscribing to changes. > > Every interesting use of inotify that I've seen is for some kind of > cache support, to eliminate the majority of stat() calls, to remove > disk I/O (no stat means no inode), to ensure correctness (st_mtime is > coarse and unreliable), It seems rather fragile as an mtime replacement unless it's also got some sort of logging built in at a pretty low level so that you don't lose events while you're not listening. And of course events have to be defined very carefully to avoid problems such as this one. > and to avoid having to modify every > application which might affect any file from which cached items are > derived to explicitly notify all the applications which might use any > of those files. > > You like high performance, reliable and correct behaviour, and high > scalability. So I have never understood why you dislike the > change-subscription principle so strongly, because it is a natural > ally to those properties. I don't think we've seen a design that does all of that yet. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
