* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Why should we have two callbacks next to each other: > > > > event_vfs_getname(result); > > result = check_event_vfs_getname(result); > > > > if one could do it all? > > Did you actually read the bit where I said that check_event_* (although > I still think that name sucks) could imply a matching event_*? No, did not notice that - and yes that solves this particular problem. So given that by your own admission it makes sense to share the facilities at the low level, i also argue that it makes sense to share as high up as possible. Are you perhaps arguing for a ->observe flag that would make 100% sure that the default behavior for events is observe-only? That would make sense indeed. Otherwise both cases really want to use all the same facilities for event discovery, setup, control and potential extraction of events. Thanks, Ingo
