Re: libquota proposal

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:47:38AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 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.

maybe, but after 6.0.

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