On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 11:12 -0400, John McCutchan wrote: > On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 10:07 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > (sorry if twice .. sent with wrong email) > > > > Hi, > > > > Not really tested that well, but more for comment if upstream will be > > interested ... > > > > Basically add a inotify legacy support backend, disabled by default. I > > think however the HAVE_INOTIFY_IOCTL_MAGIC stuff might be considered if > > the rest is not, as it should not try to compile the new backend against > > system linux/inotify.h if old version. > > > Thanks! The patch looks good. But I don't think we should bother with > it. Anyone who is using legacy inotify, did it consciously, so I think > it's fair if we force them to upgrade. Maybe we could just commit the > patch itself and let people apply it themselves. What do you think? > Fair enough - as I said, it more for if you/Daniel want to add it. We are going to use it, as some of our packaged kernels still have 0.23, and its easier this way than to try and keep things in sync (besides, some users update system, but not kernel for a while), and I thought some other distro's might also find it handy. I can however fully understand if Daniel do not want it in the official tree. Regards, -- Martin Schlemmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part