Re: [gamin] New inotify backend checked in

[John McCutchan <ttb tentacle dhs org>]

On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 12:20 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 11:15 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > It then must be implemented at the user level.
> > It is not acceptable to argue about a specific problem in Dnotify support
> > to just cancel this fundamental property. inotify would not need to
> > maintain a tree of stat() info but one per cancleeled kernel monitor. 
> 
> Keeping a stat() tree for each cancelled kernel monitor isn't as easy as
> it sounds. That is a very racey operation. It would be easy to miss
> events in between your last inotify event and the scan of the directory.

Replying to myself,

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want this if we can show that it really
is useful. I'd just like to see some real justification (ie benchmark
numbers) showing that we do need to provide it. Performance is excellent
for me without any gamin supplied flow control.

-- 
John McCutchan <ttb tentacle dhs org>