[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: libquota proposal
On Mar 21, 2:21pm, bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| 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.
We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support.
Main Index |
Thread Index |