> On May 2, 2013, 9:19 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > Looks pretty amazing!

Cheers!


> On May 2, 2013, 9:19 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > services/filewatch/nepomukfilewatch.cpp, line 172
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/diff/3/?file=141496#file141496line172>
> >
> >     Is this required?
> >     
> >     The FileIndexer does inform the filewatch to add these watches after it 
> > starts up. Then again, we can move that logic over here.
> >     
> >     The original logic was that we do not want to overburden the number of 
> > watches, but since we are already adding the home directory, it doesn't 
> > make much sense.
> >     
> >     Though, I am a little worried about the same watches being added twice 
> > since we aren't checking if that path has already been watched when adding 
> > watches - This is not a problem when adding them via the FileIndexer cause 
> > FileWatch::addWatch does have a check.
> >     
> >     Anyway, please remove this. If you want to fix this it should go in 
> > another patch.

Ok - I'll remove it. I am kind of in favour of moving this logic to filewatch, 
because otherwise it nepomukctl restart filewatch only watches the homedir. But 
absolutely, that's another patch.


> On May 2, 2013, 9:19 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > services/filewatch/kinotify.cpp, line 125
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/diff/3/?file=141494#file141494line125>
> >
> >     Are you sure we should be sending the encoded path to the filterWatch 
> > function? Cause the way I see it - the filterWatch function calls stuff 
> > like FileIndexerConfig::shouldFolderBeWatched( path ) and that needs the 
> > non-encoded file path.
> >     
> >     .
> >     .
> >     
> >     Just checked - and we always seem to have been passing the encoded path 
> > to addWatch( .. ). Is that correct?

Yes....you're right, it should be the non-encoded path.

Actually, thinking about it, it should indeed have been path all along, and I'm 
kind of surprised it ever worked properly (or, uh, compiled).


> On May 2, 2013, 9:19 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > services/filewatch/kinotify.cpp, line 301
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/diff/3/?file=141494#file141494line301>
> >
> >     Please add some spaces -
> >     
> >     kDebug() << "Removing:" << dirIter->path();

Oops...I didn't mean to post that for review anyway.


> On May 2, 2013, 9:19 a.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > services/filewatch/kinotify.cpp, line 306
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/diff/3/?file=141494#file141494line306>
> >
> >     spaces
> >

Ditto


- Simeon


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/#review31873
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 30, 2013, 3:02 a.m., Simeon Bird wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 30, 2013, 3:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Nepomuk, Sebastian Trueg and Vishesh Handa.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Filewatch:
> 
> Watch all indexed folders on service startup.
> This is needed so that nepomukctl restart filewatch
> watches all needed folders.
> 
> FileWatch: Use KAuth to automatically raise the inotify watch limit if we run 
> out of watches.
> 
> When we run out of watches, use a KAuth action to double the inotify
> watch limit (by writing to /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches).
> At the same time, make the new setting persist across reboots by writing
> /etc/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf.
> 
> If for some reason raising the limit does not work, print a message to
> syslog.
> 
> While the limit is being raised, no new watches will be added, only
> queued. Adding of watches is automatically resumed if the limit is raised.
> 
> ==Potential issues==
> 
> 2. At the moment there is no way to turn this off, except by not using 
> nepomuk or denying the user the requisite kauth permissions. This is the sort 
> of thing that people complain about, but I can't really see any reason to 
> want to do that - you'd be running nepomuk in a "known broken" configuration, 
> which makes no sense.
> 
> 3. the action description string is "To avoid missing file changes, raise the 
> folder watch limit", which could probably be improved.
> 
> 4. The method of making the change persist across reboots is to write a file 
> to /etc/sysctl.d, which is a bit anti-social. (note that if /etc is not 
> writable, it simply does nothing). /etc/sysctl.d should work on all systemd 
> distros, debian (including derivatives such as ubuntu) and gentoo.
> 
> Part of me wants to make this a separate action, but as I understand it this 
> would require a second prompt and a second authorization, which would be a 
> bit annoying. Also, the user's file system isn't going away - if they wanted 
> a larger limit once, they almost certainly want it again, so there are 
> limited reasons for not wanting it permanent. But finer grained permissions 
> are a Good Thing, so I'm not so sure about this.
> 
> 5. If the user has manually set the watch limit to a too-low number in 
> sysctl.conf, it could potentially over-ride the file in /etc/sysctl.d, 
> leading to the prompt appearing on every boot.
> 
> Also, I'd just like to mention that I was quite impressed at how easy to 
> KAuth was to work with.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   services/filewatch/CMakeLists.txt 338fe8c2b008b1c898d71934e4de3028c0078fca 
>   services/filewatch/kinotify.h e795371d922d483bce29e9eea03c1eeb97738355 
>   services/filewatch/kinotify.cpp 94babfe437ddfa8c9318b8b29dd8c8a03a4e71b1 
>   services/filewatch/nepomukfilewatch.h 
> 66e0112d909a2abefed48d0959323e7f32a5ff9b 
>   services/filewatch/nepomukfilewatch.cpp 
> fbbf3db619516e296bc1e4aa07f53808fbe4a4c0 
>   services/filewatch/org.kde.nepomuk.filewatch.actions PRE-CREATION 
>   services/filewatch/raiselimit.h PRE-CREATION 
>   services/filewatch/raiselimit.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106748/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Compiled, ran, raised and lowered the limit a few times.
> 
> It seems to work pretty well.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Simeon Bird
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Nepomuk mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk

Reply via email to