From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yb0-f193.google.com ([209.85.213.193]:33757 "EHLO
        mail-yb0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753667AbeE3Pk2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 May 2018 11:40:28 -0400
Received: by mail-yb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id x36-v6so6506865ybi.0
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 08:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <470ddceb-fa27-7467-c6ad-1aca4c551432@acentic.com>
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>
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 18:40:27 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxiAEgh=41sSzvdm+wGJPR5-+vBiLoxnfKDRDbUcpihr5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4.17] inotify: Add flag IN_EXCL_ADD for inotify_add_watch()
To: Henry Wilson <henry.wilson@acentic.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Henry Wilson <henry.wilson@acentic.com> 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 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).

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.

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?
Maybe include linux-api in the discussion?

Thanks,
Amir.