Re: libquota proposal

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Mar 22,  1:10pm, dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal

| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
|  > > (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.
| 
| That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
| be supported. Once upon a time (IIRC) df used to fall back to opening
| the block device and examining ffs structures directly; that was
| removed because it violated desirable abstractions.

Totally agree, please remove this complex and hard to maintain stuff.

christos