Fri, 22 May 2009 10:26:56 +0900 inotify: use a decorator instead of dispatching calls
Nicolas Dumazet <nicdumz.commits@gmail.com> [Fri, 22 May 2009 10:26:56 +0900] rev 8606
inotify: use a decorator instead of dispatching calls
Fri, 22 May 2009 09:57:53 +0900 inotify: do not defer inotify events processing
Nicolas Dumazet <nicdumz.commits@gmail.com> [Fri, 22 May 2009 09:57:53 +0900] rev 8605
inotify: do not defer inotify events processing Doing a part of the event processing and deferring the rest is a bad habit: it complexifies the code, and it does not respect event ordering! Moreover, there is already a timeout handling, so that inotify events are only processed when a treshold is exceeded: there is no requirement to delay anymore the events processing.
Thu, 21 May 2009 15:55:58 +0900 inotify: do not recurse in handle_timeout(): call it explicitely, not in scan()
Nicolas Dumazet <nicdumz.commits@gmail.com> [Thu, 21 May 2009 15:55:58 +0900] rev 8604
inotify: do not recurse in handle_timeout(): call it explicitely, not in scan() When in handle_timeout, scan() is called when a repertory is created/modified. But the first line of scan calls handle_timeout. This had the consequence of calling recursively handle_timeout: * several calls to read_events (but only the first one retrieves events) * every time that an event is queued for a deferred action, the next time that scan() is called, handle_timeout is called, the event queue is treated, even if all the events haven't been read/queued yet. This could lead to inconsistencies
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -3 +3 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip