On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:32:05AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> the following change is sitting out at github, to add kqueue support
> for more file operations:
>
> https://github.com/dmatveev/libinotify-kqueue/blob/master/patches
>
> does anyone have reasons why we shouldn't import this chan
One (two?) question(s).
Any mechanism for monitoring file alternation (modify/create/rename/...)
should NOT avoid unmounting filesystem.
With this aspect, are these patches conforming?
If not, there should be some mechanisms to stop monitoring per device /
share basis. Are there some?
*Imagine
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:32:05AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> the following change is sitting out at github, to add kqueue support
> for more file operations:
>
> https://github.com/dmatveev/libinotify-kqueue/blob/master/patches
>
> does anyone have reasons why we shouldn't import this cha
the following change is sitting out at github, to add kqueue support
for more file operations:
https://github.com/dmatveev/libinotify-kqueue/blob/master/patches
does anyone have reasons why we shouldn't import this change.
libinotify is now a port and could use these.
___
