Re: fanotify - overall design before I start sending patches

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2009-08-06 11:20:25, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On Thursday 06 August 2009 11:10:59 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2009-08-05 17:46:16, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > Just to make sure you haven't missed this - it is not that they have to
> > > complete the whole operation before the timeout period (since you mention
> > > realtime/mlock I suspect this is what you think?), but _during_ the
> > > operation they have to show that they are active by sending something
> > > like keep alive messages.
> > >
> > > Or you are worried about failing to meet even that on a loaded system?
> > > There has to be something like this otherwise hung userspace client would
> > > kill the whole system.
> >
> > Of course, I'm worried about failing to meet this on loaded
> > system. And the fact that I _have_ to worry about that means that
> > interface is ugly/broken.
> 
> Would you prefer an infinite timeout instead? Maybe Eric could make it 
> configurable. Or you have some other alternative ideas?

Infinite timeout would be less ugly, yes.

Having it configurable would be still ugly, but at least it would be
"administrator's fault" at that point.
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/