On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote: > > > I get that message a lot. I know I have said this before (and was wrong) > > but I think the idr layer is busted. > > This time I think I agree with you. ;-) > > Let's just pass zero for the "above" parameter in idr_get_new_above(), > which is I believe the behavior of the other interface, and see if the > 1024-multiple problem goes away. We definitely did not have that > before. >
I will test this. > If it does, and we don't have another solution, let's run with that for > 2.6.13. I don't want this bug released. I really don't want 2.6.13 to go out with this bug or the compromise. If we use 0, we will have a lot of wd re-use. Which will cause "strange" problems in inotify using applications that cleanup upon receipt of an IN_IGNORE event. The problem will manifest it self when a program does this: inotify_add_watch "/x" returns 1 inotify_rm_watch 1 [IN_IGNORE event is queued with wd == 1] inotify_add_watch "/y" returns 1 application reads events cleans up data structures associated with wd == 1. -- John McCutchan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/