--4oF+6Ged69J0+4/e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 11:21:54AM +0200, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 10:53:00AM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> >=20
> > In general, great!
> >=20
> > My one concern is that you seem to have removed quota handling from=20
> > ufs_access. I'm not fully sure what it was doing, and thus I'm not full=
y=20
> > sure if it's safe to remove.
>=20
> I removed all explicit calls to getinoquota().  These calls don't check a=
ny
> quota, they just make the quota fields of an inode valid.
>=20
> Instead I changed the functions checking/changing quotas (chkdq() and chk=
iq())
> to validate the inode's quota fields.

We have verified that an inode's quota fields are correct when requesting=
=20
write access to a file since revision 1.1 of ufs_vnops.c. I believe we=20
need to retain that. If there is an issue with the quota fields in an=20
inode, ufs_access() is a better time to report it than in an operation.=20
All of the other users I saw of getinoquota() subsequently added to or=20
removed from the quota, so merging the routines makes sense. Here,=20
however, we just validate. I believe we need to continue doing so.

Take care,

Bill

--4oF+6Ged69J0+4/e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGjoEkWz+3JHUci9cRAgXBAJ9EfXt8zfnO0MvRUgSuGKkTeYIOmQCfckF+
6DaFv5BLN8fPevBqjZ5qDmg=
=ZZ0a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4oF+6Ged69J0+4/e--