tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: libquota proposal

In article <>,
matthew green  <> 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.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index