Subject: bug#10349: tail: fix --follow on FhGFS remote file systems

From: Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:08:33 +0000

On 12/22/2011 11:48 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 09:50 PM, Alan Curry wrote:
>> Bob Proulx writes:
>>>
>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> Are there so many new remote file systems coming into use now?
>>>> That are not listed in /usr/include/linux/magic.h?
>>>
>>> The past can always be enumerated.  The future is always changing.  It
>>> isn't possible to have a complete list of future items.  It is only
>>> possible to have a complete list of past items.  The future is not yet
>>> written.
>>
>> Between past and future is the present, i.e. the currently running kernel.
>> Shouldn't it return an error when you use an interface that isn't implemented
>> by the underlying filesystem? Why doesn't this happen?
> 
> That's a fair point.
> 
> Eric shouldn't some/all remote file systems in the kernel
> return ENOTSUP for inotify operations?

Oh right, as Sven points out,
a notification _is_ sent for local processes modifying a remote file.
I guess we'd need a IN_REMOTE flag (send remote events too), which
remote file systems would return ENOTSUP if they don't support that.
That's getting a bit awkward though.

cheers,
Pádraig.