Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] inotify kernel API | From | John McCutchan <> | Date | Fri, 26 May 2006 12:12:26 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 22:10 -0400, Amy Griffis wrote: > After stress testing and completing audit patches to use this API, > I've made the following changes: > > (*) Allow callers to share the refcounting for an inotify_watch. > If the caller has embedded the inotify_watch in one of its own > structs, both inotify and the caller may need to use refcounts > for that data. Since the caller is ultimately responsible for > freeing the inotify_watch data, they must register a destroy > function to be called on the last put_inotify_watch. Also > provide inotify_init_watch() to enable a caller to use > refcounts before calling inotify_add_watch(). >
Seems sane
> > (*) Allow callers to remove watches from their event handler. > Audit uses this feature to remove a watch after an > IN_MOVE_SELF event. Another similar use could be to have > functionality similar to IN_ONESHOT, but have it apply to a > subset of events in the mask. > (*) Fixed a deadlock in inotify_dev_queue_event(). > > (*) Fixed memleaks in inotify_destroy() and with IN_ONESHOT masks. > > (*) Re-ordered calls to event handler with IN_IGNORED events. > Since caller may do final put here, this must be the last > thing inotify does with an inotify_watch. > > I did some stress tests and performance comparisons on inotify with > and without this patch. The tests I used and some results are posted > here:
Having only glanced at your latest code, all of your changes and bug fixes look good. Thanks very much for putting the effort into auditing and testing inotify.
-- John McCutchan <john@johnmccutchan.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |