Re: libquota proposal

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:41:52PM +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.
 > 
 > Once again: this needs to be supported for transition, up to 6.0
 > (inclusive).

No, it doesn't. Even before you touched anything, they were only
scribbling directly as a fallback if the kernel operations failed.
The kernel operations should not fail in any case where scribbling
directly makes sense; furthermore there's no need at all to deal with
the case where the fs isn't mounted.

In the new world order all userland quota operations go through the
kernel interface so they can interact successfully with filesystems
using either the old or new quota layouts, or with new filesystems
that may have their own different quota layouts, like zfs or whatever
else. Right?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost