Re: the bouyer-quota2 branch

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:52:58PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> 
> > > > > that seems reasonable to me.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you propose then ? quotactl is the best name I can find for this
> > > > syscall ...
> > > 
> > > quotactl2?  quotapctl?  quota_pctl?  quotactl_the_next_generation?
> > > ... quota_king?
> > 
> > All are 
> > > 
> > > Considering that quotactl is not used by programmers (unless they're
> > > hacking on the quota utils ;) I don't think we need to spend a lot
> > 
> > someone who looks at quotactl(8) will also look at quotactl(2) ...
> > 
> > > of energy on picking the name.  If we want to follow a common naming
> > 
> > Agreed. So let's keep quotactl(2) ... it's fine and is working.
> 
> i'd rather use quotactl2() than the old name.
> 
> other ideas:
>       
>       quotapropctl()
>       quotaprop()
> 
> and i'd be ok with quotapctl() as well.

I still don't understand what problem we're trying to fix. OK, by using
another name we don't need RENAME(). But why is it harmfull ?
How is it worse than other syscalls or functions which have been versionned ?

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--