Re: [PATCH] inotify kernel API

[John McCutchan]

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 22:10 -0400, Amy Griffis wrote:
> After stress testing and completing audit patches to use this API,
> I've made the following changes:
> 
>     (*) Allow callers to share the refcounting for an inotify_watch.
>         If the caller has embedded the inotify_watch in one of its own
>         structs, both inotify and the caller may need to use refcounts
>         for that data.  Since the caller is ultimately responsible for
>         freeing the inotify_watch data, they must register a destroy
>         function to be called on the last put_inotify_watch.  Also
>         provide inotify_init_watch() to enable a caller to use
>         refcounts before calling inotify_add_watch().
> 

Seems sane

> 	
>     (*) Allow callers to remove watches from their event handler.
>         Audit uses this feature to remove a watch after an
>         IN_MOVE_SELF event.  Another similar use could be to have
>         functionality similar to IN_ONESHOT, but have it apply to a
>         subset of events in the mask.
>     (*) Fixed a deadlock in inotify_dev_queue_event().
> 
>     (*) Fixed memleaks in inotify_destroy() and with IN_ONESHOT masks.
> 
>     (*) Re-ordered calls to event handler with IN_IGNORED events.
>         Since caller may do final put here, this must be the last
>         thing inotify does with an inotify_watch.
> 
> I did some stress tests and performance comparisons on inotify with
> and without this patch.  The tests I used and some results are posted
> here:


Having only glanced at your latest code, all of your changes and bug
fixes look good. Thanks very much for putting the effort into auditing
and testing inotify. 

-- 
John McCutchan <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
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/