Re: [patch] inotify.

[Robert Love]

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 19:28 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> You are using ioctl as an really bad syscall multiplexer.  You're
> not using the file descriptor it's called on at all, so it does not qualify
> as a valid ioctl() usage even under the most lax rules.

We provide two different ioctl commands, it is not a bad multiplexer.
We have discussed this before.

We do use the fd.  It maps back to the inotify device.

> Also you claimed the resource shortage for the proposed architecture
> with just a single syscall, aka one watch per fd without showing any
> reasons why that would be true, in fact by any means there's no reason
> to believe file descriptors are a rare ressource in a modern Linux system.

It is not implausible to believe that a system might have the default
maximum for file descriptors (not very high) but allow a _much_ greater
number of inotify watches (32k, say).

That is our rationale.  I hear what you are saying, I understand it, and
at the end of the day I disagree.  I appreciate your input, but I feel
otherwise.

> I don't care whether you adopt my interface proposal or a different passable
> one, but the current one is not acceptable at all.

Everything to you is "really bad" and "totally unacceptable".  Chill
out.  Stop ranting so much and enjoy life.

	Robert Love


-
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/