On 12/23/2011 12:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Pádraig Brady wrote: >> 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. > > I'm thinking of recording[*] which file systems are local and which > are remote.
You mean by tagging the table in stat.c with say "(remote)" after the hex constant? Then use that to build a header for use by tail::fremote() ? > Then we can make tail -f warn when one or more of > its file arguments resides on a remote file system. We may finally > have to add and document --disable-inotify. Currently we fall back to polling for remote file systems. I'm not sure it's worth warning since it's only a latency difference. > [*] It's easy to record local/remote in a table from which a switch stmt > or gperf table is derived, just as is currently done for FS magic numbers. cheers, Pádraig.
