Re: libquota proposal

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

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:44:53AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> 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.

repquota at last needs them: it doesn't have any way to get a list
of quotas otherwise (and it's also part of the migration to quota2,
with repquota -x).

> 
> 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?

right. Exept that the "getall" command is not supported for quota1,
repquota does the job itself.

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