[RFC,PATCH] dnotify: enhance or replace?

From: Rüdiger Klaehn
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 09:16:33 EST

Hi all,

I have been working on a dnotify enhancement to let it work recursively and to store information about what exactly has changed.

My current code can be found here:

From reading the list, I got the impression that there is a general consensus that the current dnotify mechanism is less than optimal, and that something should be done about it. Is that correct?

My current implementation enhances the dnotify mechanism, but is backwards compatible to the old mechanism. This is obviously the least intrusive approach, but it is also less than optimal. For example it still requires an open file handle to watch for changes in a tree, so it will create problems when unmounting a device.

In an offline discussion, the issue came up wether it would not be better to replace dnotify with a completely new mechanism like e.g. a special netlink socket. Since most userspace programs (e.g. KDE and gnome) do not use dnotify directly, but through the fam daemon, the required changes in user space applications would not be that great.

So what is your take on this? Enhance or replace?

best regards,


p.s.: I cc'ed everybody who I think might be interested in a dnotify enhancement/replacement.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/