Re: libquota proposal

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <4389.1300488018%splode.eterna.com.au@localhost>,
matthew green  <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost> wrote:
>
>this seems reasonable to me.  why don't you stick it in libutil?
>
>> As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
>> to commit this in the next few days.
>
>this is what i'm talking about about using a different name for
>the new syscall that takes totally different arguments.
>
>is there absolutely no chance for old code to work with the new
>kernel?  if it's simply making it use the old quotactl() calls,
>then please reconsider renaming the new syscall to something
>else, as discussed on the prior thread.

And can we s/quota2/quota/ and s/quota/quota1 or oquota.

christos