On 12/22/2011 11:48 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 12/22/2011 09:50 PM, Alan Curry wrote: >> Bob Proulx writes: >>> >>> Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> Are there so many new remote file systems coming into use now? >>>> That are not listed in /usr/include/linux/magic.h? >>> >>> The past can always be enumerated. The future is always changing. It >>> isn't possible to have a complete list of future items. It is only >>> possible to have a complete list of past items. The future is not yet >>> written. >> >> Between past and future is the present, i.e. the currently running kernel. >> Shouldn't it return an error when you use an interface that isn't implemented >> by the underlying filesystem? Why doesn't this happen? > > That's a fair point. > > Eric shouldn't some/all remote file systems in the kernel > return ENOTSUP for inotify operations?
Oh right, as Sven points out, a notification _is_ sent for local processes modifying a remote file. I guess we'd need a IN_REMOTE flag (send remote events too), which remote file systems would return ENOTSUP if they don't support that. That's getting a bit awkward though. cheers, Pádraig.
