From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:40170 "EHLO
        mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727343AbeJDRUo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:20:44 -0400
Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id w7-v6so3671832ybm.7
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 03:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181003212539.2384-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20181003212539.2384-8-amir73il@gmail.com>
 <20181004084608.GB11529@quack2.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20181004084608.GB11529@quack2.suse.cz>
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:27:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhysePWSxTat4Y96B+r6gL4XGV=tbBQ=7ci=uLhekfWPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] fanotify: support reporting thread id instead of
 process id
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:46 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Thu 04-10-18 00:25:38, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > In order to identify which thread triggered the event in a
> > multi-threaded program, add the FAN_EVENT_INFO_TID flag in fanotify_init
> > to opt-in for reporting the event creator's thread id information.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: nixiaoming <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ...
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fanotify.h b/include/linux/fanotify.h
> > index afddd7e0d5a1..05b696b4856b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fanotify.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fanotify.h
> > @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@
> >  #define FANOTIFY_CLASS_BITS  (FAN_CLASS_NOTIF | FAN_CLASS_CONTENT | \
> >                                FAN_CLASS_PRE_CONTENT)
> >
> > +#define FANOTIFY_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS    (FAN_EVENT_INFO_TID)
> > +
> >  #define FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS  (FANOTIFY_CLASS_BITS | \
> > +                              FANOTIFY_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS | \
> >                                FAN_CLOEXEC | FAN_NONBLOCK | \
> >                                FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE | FAN_UNLIMITED_MARKS)
>
> Is there reason to define FANOTIFY_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS? But I guess you
> prepare with this for further changes you want to do? Just that at this
> point it looks a bit silly and I cannot really think of a reason why we'd
> like to distinguish flags in FANOTIFY_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS from other flags in
> FANOTIFY_INIT_FLAGS...
>

No functional reason. Feel free to drop FANOTIFY_EVENT_INFO_FLAGS.

Thanks,
Amir.