Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:11:45 +0000 | Subject | Re: No error when inotify_add_watch(/an/NFS/file) | From | "Phil Endecott" <> |
| |
J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:20:55PM +0000, Phil Endecott wrote: >> Dear Experts, >> >> NFS doesn't work with inotify (and it looks like it can't, certainly not >> before NFS v4.1). However, if I give an NFS filename to >> inotify_add_watch(), I don't get an error. >> >> If it indicated an error in this case then I could easily fall back to some >> sort of polling. Without an error, I need some other way to detect NFS >> (and any other non-inotify-compatible filesystems). >> >> Any thoughts? > > The one reason I can think of that you might want that behavior is if > you know you only access a given piece of the filesystem from one client > at a time, and you still want inotify to work in that situation.
That's a good point.
> (I'm assuming inotify still notifies you of changes that are made on the same > client.)
A quick test suggest that it does.
> But maybe you could handle that case by allowing inotify_add_watch() in > the case where the nfs filesystem was mounted with the "nolock" option, > and failing it otherwise, and telling people to turn on nolock if > they're sure they know what they're doing.
I'm not sure what your rationale for proposing that is, and I don't think it helps in my scenario; a user wants their inotify-using application to "just work", not to be told to "sudo re-mount".
I suppose that I just need some way to determine whether I will get all, some, or none of the events that I've asked for.
Phil.
- 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/
| |