On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:33:06AM -0400, John McCutchan wrote: > > We should make the flood tests check for the deactivation of the > > kernel monitoring, this could be different for inotify but this should > > still be done. I need to double check dnotify15.py for analysis. > > Well, the inotify backend will never deactivate kernel monitoring.
I really disagree with this. > Because I don't want to have to maintain the stat() trees. There are The kernel has no flow control. 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. You are throwing the baby with the bath water, this is just wrong. If you drop flow control, then gamin provides absolutely no added benefice on top of inotify and I don't see the point of even maintaining a back-end for it ! > quite a few dnotifyisms on the test suite. But, I have verified the > event stream in all the passing test cases. Could you run make tests > with the latest code (using the dnotify backend)? they passed. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ Gamin-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gamin-list
