Re: the bouyer-quota2 branch

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

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:01:44AM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Thu Mar 10 2011 at 09:36:20 +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:42:08AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat Feb 19 2011 at 23:21:35 +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > > > > This branch is for the developement of a modernized disk quota system.
> > > > > The 2 main changes are: a new quotactl(2) interface and a new on-disk
> > > > > format, compatible with journaled ffs.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I'm wondering if the new quotactl syscall should have a new name
> > > > instead of keeping the old one.
> > > > 
> > > > It doesn't make much sense to play __RENAME() games with it since
> > > > any old code will not compile against the new quotactl signature.
> > > 
> > > that seems reasonable to me.
> > 
> > What do you propose then ? quotactl is the best name I can find for this
> > syscall ...
> 
> quotactl2?  quotapctl?  quota_pctl?  quotactl_the_next_generation?
> ... quota_king?

All are 
> 
> Considering that quotactl is not used by programmers (unless they're
> hacking on the quota utils ;) I don't think we need to spend a lot

someone who looks at quotactl(8) will also look at quotactl(2) ...

> of energy on picking the name.  If we want to follow a common naming

Agreed. So let's keep quotactl(2) ... it's fine and is working.

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