tech-userlevel archive

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

Re: libquota proposal

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:22:18PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 21,  5:25pm, (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
> | > We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support.
> | 
> | maybe, but after 6.0.
> But then are you going to go back and change quota2->quota?

This is independant.

> And if yes, why not now?

we need quota1 up to 6.0 (inclusive) for transition. But we can rename
quota -> quota1 or oquota and quota2 -> quota now. I've already
done so in libquota to avoid an ABI change later; the kernel option can
be done after libquota has been commited (this is independant); the header
merge can be done once quota1 has been removed as there should not be
public consumers any more.

Manuel Bouyer <>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index