Re: [PATCH] open(2): document O_PATH

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:34:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>> I looked at dnotify_flush, they remove markers on an inode.
>> But then it also checks for filp to match. So I am not sure
>> whether skipping dnotify_flush for O_PATH descriptor have any impact. We
>> can't use O_PATH descriptor for dnotify fcntl any way. So in
>> dnotify_flush we will not match the filp.
>>
>> Viro,
>>
>> Any reason why we skip dnotify_flush  ?
>
> See your last sentence above - why bother finding the mark, scanning the
> list, etc. when we know that there won't be any matches?

So, am I correct to understand that O_PATH has no interaction with dnotify?

Thanks,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/
--
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/