Re: [patch] make dnotify compile-time configurable

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:44:39 -0400 Robert Love wrote:

| On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 08:31 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| 
| > I'd rather see inotify additions and dnotify config options kept
| > separate.  They may serve a similar purpose, but inotify doesn't
| > replace the dnotify API.  If the latter were true, combining
| > them would make sense IMO.
| 
| I'm not really following.
| 
| Whether or not dnotify is a configuration option is separate, and could
| go into the kernel either way.

Sorry, that's about all that I was trying to say.  If patches A & B
are logically separate, don't combine them.  Nothing new there.

| But what matters if our inotify patch also carries the change?  People
| with inotify definitely DO want this patch, because they don't need
| dnotify.  Not much uses dnotify--it is a pain to use--and inotify
| replaces its functionality.

Well, the patch shouldn't remove dnotify unconditionally, or not
until we have that elusive stable kernel series that people keep
mentioning elsewhere.

| It is also a practical move: the diffs conflict.

I see.

-- 
~Randy
MOTD:  Always include version info.
(Again.  Sometimes I think ln -s /usr/src/linux/.config .signature)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/