On 2009-11-23 at 19:42:56 [+0100], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Wouldn't adding another type of event (like B_ENTRY_MOVED) for > > > queries > > > make sense? > > That could be done, yes. A notify_query_entry_moved() would need to be > > added > > and all file systems supporting live queries would need to be > > adjusted to > > call it. > > So what do we agree on? > When using a live query, chances are very high that you want to monitor > the file in question, anyway. Since the entry didn't change wrt the > query, I would find it cleaner to keep that separated. > Introducing B_ENTRY_MOVED would also require userland apps to support > this (unlike my previous B_ENTRY_REMOVED/B_ENTRY_ADDED hack). I'm fine with the query flag to automatically start node monitoring. If we want to add the feature minimally invasively, we'd only add a new query flag just triggering B_WATCH_NAME watching on the concerned entry' node. The alternative would be to either squeeze the requested node monitoring flags into the fs_open_live_query() flags or add another call with separate flags. Come to think of it, ATM notify_query_entry_created() can't trigger the automatic node monitoring, because it doesn't know that it should. So either an additional boolean flag or a flags parameter is needed. CU, Ingo