From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262049AbVFQS2c (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:28:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262050AbVFQS2c (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:28:32 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:35494 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262049AbVFQS22 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:28:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:28:26 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Robert Love Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Zach Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , John McCutchan , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] inotify. Message-ID: <20050617182826.GA20250@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Robert Love , Arnd Bergmann , Zach Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , John McCutchan , Andrew Morton References: <1118855899.3949.21.camel@betsy> <42B1BC4B.3010804@zabbo.net> <1118946334.3949.63.camel@betsy> <200506171907.39940.arnd@arndb.de> <20050617175404.GA19463@infradead.org> <1119032213.3949.124.camel@betsy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1119032213.3949.124.camel@betsy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:16:53PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: > We considered your feedback, Christoph. Ultimately, John, Andrew, and I > settled on the current approach. In life, not everyone agrees on every > little detail and there usually exists a large difference between "not > exactly the same" and "horrible". And never does the histrionics result > in anything productive. This shows exactly on how you're refusing feedback on the basis totally unfounded claims again. You are using ioctl as an really bad syscall multiplexer. You're not using the file descriptor it's called on at all, so it does not qualify as a valid ioctl() usage even under the most lax rules. Also you claimed the resource shortage for the proposed architecture with just a single syscall, aka one watch per fd without showing any reasons why that would be true, in fact by any means there's no reason to believe file descriptors are a rare ressource in a modern Linux system. I don't care whether you adopt my interface proposal or a different passable one, but the current one is not acceptable at all.