From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add generic uevent infrastructure Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:25:01 -0800 Message-ID: <20131119102501.GA5107@infradead.org> References: <1384785520-607-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org> <20131118162045.GA3268@infradead.org> <20131119013621.GH11434@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dmitry Monakhov , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:41371 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750833Ab3KSKZG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:25:06 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131119013621.GH11434@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:36:21PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > I certain agree with that. I'd also like to see ENOSPC notifications > as that would obliviate the need for distros like RHEL to ship > systemtap scripts to generate such notifications for admins.... The ENOSPC case would be a natural tag on to Jan's quota notification, and I have a vague memory that someone started implementing it or at least talked about it. > > > Also Jan Kara has done quota netlink notifications a while ago, which > > fit into the same sort of niche. > > The question I'm asking is whether we really want a new interface > for these events? Shouldn't we really try to use an existing > filesystem event interface for generating these events Good quetion, and the quota netlink notifications would be the natural place to tag on at least some of this. > (e.g. > fanotify) rather than adding yet another disjoint filesystem event > interface to the kernel? It needs to be a per-fs interface, and as Dmitry pointed out fanotify is a per-file one. Nevermind thast it's an utterly horrible interface that shouldn't have been merged and really should be disabled in distro kernels..