Re: [Tracker] [PATCH] Make tracker skip mountpoints

["Marcus Fritzsch" <fritschy googlemail com>]

On 8/6/07, jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:36 +0200, Marcus Fritzsch wrote:
> > On 8/6/07, jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 04:03 +0200, Marcus Fritzsch wrote:
> > > > This patch prevents tracker from descending into mountpoints which is
> > > > a directory other than a watch- or crawl-root. I often have some fs
> > > > (sshfs, nfs) mounted under my $HOME and found tracker going down all
> > > > these trees. Also, there was a bug report on launchpad about this[1].
> > > >
> > > > I am however not sure if this method works, also I haven't found much
> > > > references when searching for it by google or clusty. If there are
> > > > objections to this method of mount-point 'discovery' it would be
> > > > possible to read mtab and store it in struct Tracker for processing.
> > > >
> > > > However as tracker is not that simple I am not aware of any side
> > > > effects this patch may have on tracker, I tested it - with mount
> > > > points in watched dirs and crawled ones, with fuse and nfs mounts.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > yeah its a good idea
> > >
> > > but take a look at tracker-utils.c:
> > >
> > > tracker_file_is_no_watched
> > > tracker_file_is_crawled
> >
> > Thought of this too. The function signature needs a 'current' dir and
> > a 'testdir' to check wether testdir is a different device then current
> > - there is no problem with that? That would be faster - however I
> > could also implement it by checking against the crawl and watch
> > directory roots list. Which one do you prefer?
>
> I would prefer the latter but can we store the device signature of the
> watch and crawl dirs somewhere so we are not constantly stating them?
>
> (Could use a GSList to store them and simply iterate over them)

Yes, that's no problem I think.

OK, getting to code now.

Marcus