Re: [patch] inotify.

From: Robert Love
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 13:38:58 EST

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 19:28 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> 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.

We provide two different ioctl commands, it is not a bad multiplexer.
We have discussed this before.

We do use the fd. It maps back to the inotify device.

> 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.

It is not implausible to believe that a system might have the default
maximum for file descriptors (not very high) but allow a _much_ greater
number of inotify watches (32k, say).

That is our rationale. I hear what you are saying, I understand it, and
at the end of the day I disagree. I appreciate your input, but I feel

> I don't care whether you adopt my interface proposal or a different passable
> one, but the current one is not acceptable at all.

Everything to you is "really bad" and "totally unacceptable". Chill
out. Stop ranting so much and enjoy life.

Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at