From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D18C07E95 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD70061374 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 01:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237231AbhGNBTn (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:19:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50398 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237198AbhGNBTn (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:19:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FCF1C0613DD for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id h4so356462pgp.5 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=XurQJvxBh8swEQbBf8RW3CynPtWq1ocXW4TAaOIj/L0=; b=Tk4UPWrkCz1ftGN2yLaU5HejCqByw6z8EEbRe2VIPNuZ08Gza//pQ/OeXEU+9a+v7v PhNhffl2NKFBCdUkNhmdUbiQYgXIllXp5+dJ11qfQa9iaJ+Ncyy93BPzzaIU7y8+dO8z MSwbIv9SD7h3tcs1c9WNVxCCDfcMYwGLflfi8yFG/WSCgF8xxqN0gsooEKNKhT3MKaJQ 7Mcv9xX0m6gn1w5zDXrJnNczOpWVX2540KFyyy1ViH0rU/wDWK/73H1jdJ7uQCscXfoE qQwLgSdXLJQXiiG4DRKz0KGdC7o+EW6ozci5p08NTU98YiC1xqr5Ls1NOgIoX3xUczfL piCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=XurQJvxBh8swEQbBf8RW3CynPtWq1ocXW4TAaOIj/L0=; b=UeIXSO/HVH1NoHi2ynZLyz2LJjjUwqSskEAMuHLSm47nc1k6xQrYtgD0FY1teyVXHT FualNRJdLhQZkuT2pi3fpn6LUGm0lvdDuz4oxtuanBUfY6ORZgktGylt9bqVrOEEWRUM TZCXPz7brQixWFSwBULXgg/qdSaXWLPvO0BM7ELDZXUf7Jrh/IbnDEiiNEg6PBQT2ky/ SPXEOtXaUPm5GIUJrjJaT5Djiaima/1SekonVVG3QtAY1R9DwuHYcJZuUm4r50hjTu0n 69fumnfx1pbsS2mXvvKF3ljEzgVNyYCxOG6D5ILQweDaWoVUbbeD06qg8slCMWM1/IDx hGlA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/AUPPskQWbdZ71nv6vsc/Di9tpjj7P5+S4OwnzWvQcTQrBs1w DYQ79NRr61SUUVj7S0scQkApfEV2ORBjZg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh9M+Sl/QsA53Y5YGD3ia8PlG/aE7lZh/d758vFXmIljUdH+n6LWaY/XjxudN0IK1CAm+Qew== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:158e:b029:32b:9de5:a199 with SMTP id u14-20020a056a00158eb029032b9de5a199mr7176482pfk.76.1626225411482; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2401:fa00:9:211:8048:54c2:c50c:3d93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d1sm353399pju.16.2021.07.13.18.16.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:16:38 +1000 From: Matthew Bobrowski To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: FAN_REPORT_CHILD_FID Message-ID: References: <20210712111016.GC26530@quack2.suse.cz> <20210712162623.GA9804@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 09:08:18PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 7:26 PM Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 12-07-21 16:00:54, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Just a brainstorming idea: How about creating new event FAN_RENAME that > > would report two DFIDs (if it is cross directory rename)? > > I like the idea, but it would have to be two DFID_NAME is case of > FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME and also for same parent rename > to be consistent. I don't have much to add to this conversation, but I'm just curious here. If we do require two separate DFID_NAME record objects in the case of cross directory rename operations, how does an event listener distinguish the difference between which is which i.e. moved_{from/to}? To me, this implies that the event listener is expected to rely on specific supplemental information object ordering, which to my knowledge is a contract that we had always wanted to avoid drawing. /M