On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:59:11AM -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > NAK. If we are going to do this -- and I leave the security > discussions to others more knowlegeable on that score than me -- then > the API design should be better than this. The current design is a > hack. Why exclude rename events? Why re-use the cookie field? The > only answers I can guess at are that the current patch is less work to > write. IMO, there are (much) better design possibilities, using > inotify1(), as I suggested earlier in this thread.
Yes, this kind of thing should be enable using an flag to inotify1, and be consistant even for rename. Doing it as a flag to inotify1 also has the advantage to be able to return an -EPERM when the feature is requested but not allowed instead of letting applications that assume it silently fail. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
