On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 05:03 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:16:09AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer [c] wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:22 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > inotify should be able to fallback to poll too, otherwise it's > > > a bug in the inotify back-end, think for example for NFS resources. > > > > > > > Hmm - well it does not use poll. I will see if I can have a > > look at at dnotify backend and cook something up. I assume > > John never got to it, or you added the poll support to dnotify > > after inotify was added? > > I added it after, yes. > Ok, thanks. > > > gam_exclude_check is used by dnotify, last I checked before 0.0.10 > > > this wasn't broken, and it better not break otherwise I will get a flurry > > > of bugs and I won't be happy. > > > > > > > I might be missing something here, but the only place its used > > is in gam_poll.c. Maybe forgotten or missing commit? Or maybe > > you can point out how it works if its not straight forward? > > You are missing the fact that dnotify implementation is just > a small "skin" on top of the poll module which implements most of > the semantic of thr fam engine. > A resource also can be toggled back and forth between kernel dnotify > and polling mode based on the load it generates. > Right, so basically I should read some more if I actually want to do something about the inotify backend and lack of poll support :) Thanks, -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part