Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 May 2012 15:11:56 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] open(2): document O_PATH |
| |
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:34:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> I looked at dnotify_flush, they remove markers on an inode. > But then it also checks for filp to match. So I am not sure > whether skipping dnotify_flush for O_PATH descriptor have any impact. We > can't use O_PATH descriptor for dnotify fcntl any way. So in > dnotify_flush we will not match the filp. > > Viro, > > Any reason why we skip dnotify_flush ?
See your last sentence above - why bother finding the mark, scanning the list, etc. when we know that there won't be any matches?
| |