From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-eopbgr110088.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.11.88]:64976 "EHLO GBR01-CWL-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753957AbeEaIW2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 04:22:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4.17] inotify: Add flag IN_EXCL_ADD for inotify_add_watch() To: Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein Cc: linux-fsdevel , linux-api@vger.kernel.org References: <20180516104430.1191-1-henry.wilson@acentic.com> <20180530102613.1194-1-henry.wilson@acentic.com> <20180530130136.uaj7akyuyp44mg3c@quack2.suse.cz> <470ddceb-fa27-7467-c6ad-1aca4c551432@acentic.com> <20180530160427.qs2dykrx3ohqm3bf@quack2.suse.cz> From: Henry Wilson Message-ID: <05f230c2-5bda-79d3-6838-7e9458c7dbf5@acentic.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:22:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180530160427.qs2dykrx3ohqm3bf@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 30/05/18 17:04, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 30-05-18 18:40:27, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> On 30/05/18 14:01, Jan Kara wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks. The patch looks good. I've added it to my tree. BTW, do you plan >>>> on >>>> working on a similar addition to fanotify? >>>> >>>> Honza >>>> >>> >>> Ah that's grand, I'm glad to have helped to improve things. >>> I'm not familiar with fanotify, however a quick look at fanotify_user.c >>> suggests that a similar approach may be taken by modifying: >>> >>> if(!fsn_mark) { >>> ... >>> } >>> else if (create) { >>> return -EEXIST; >>> } >>> >>> in both fanotify_add_vfsmount_mark() and fanotify_add_inode_mark() >>> >> >> I think that was a yes/no question and I interpret your answer as no?? >> >> Anyway, another yes/no question: >> Can you write a simple LTP test to verify the new API? I shall have a go at writing a test, yes. >> >> I reccon Jan was also expecting an actual patch posted to man pages >> maintainer (and linux-api, which was not cc'ed on the latest patch). Ah, I did not know linux-api needed to be cc'ed in. > > Yes, and I think Henry is about to post it, just didn't get to it yet. For reference here is an archive link to the thread on the linux-man archive https://marc.info/?l=linux-man&m=152769572917930&w=2 > >> About the fanotify change, since fanotify API does have 'flags' separate >> from 'mask', I am not sure if FAN_MARK_EXCL_ADD would be the >> best flag name?? Perhaps FAN_MARK_CREATE? FAN_MARK_NEW? >> not sure. > > Yes, for fanotify we could choose a different name. > >> But also, I did not get a chance to comment about the chosen inotify >> flag name that the lexical proximity to IN_EXCL_UNLINK is a bit odd >> considering that _EXCL_ mean two completely different things. >> >> Should we maybe re-consider the chosen flag name? > > I'm open to that, I have the patch just sitting in an internal branch for > now. Do you have a better suggestion? Maybe since we already have > IN_MASK_ADD, we could call it IN_MASK_CREATE? And then FAN_MARK_CREATE for > fanotify_mark(2)? IN_MASK_CREATE seems the most logical to me too. I'm happy to resubmit the patch if necessary. > >> Maybe include linux-api in the discussion? > > Probably we should, added. > > Honza >