Re: libquota proposal

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:18:28PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:19:30PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>  > > > At this point, in the source 'quota1' is used for the old
>  > > > quota format, 'quota2' for the new one and 'quota' for the few things
>  > > > that are common.
>  > > 
>  > > Everything outside the kernel should be in the last category, though.
>  > 
>  > exept those that deal directly with the filesystem datas (edquota,
>  > quotacheck, repquota for quota1, newfs, fsck_ffs, tunefs and fsdb for
>  > quota2).
> 
> This is (part of) why it's important to distinguish the on-disk
> structures from the FS-independent interface.
> 
> (also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me...)

no, they're not: they can directly the quota1 file specified in the
fstab if quotactl fails or the filesystem is not mounted.

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