On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:39:24AM +0800, Shilong Wang wrote: > Hello, > > 2013/2/22 Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net>: > > On 02/22/13 13:09, Wang Shilong wrote: > >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> > >> This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0, > >> users can only create/destroy qgroup level more than 0. > >> > >> See the fact: > >> a subvolume/snapshot qgroup was created automatically > >> when creating subvolume/snapshot, so creating a qgroup level 0 can't > >> be a subvolume/snapshot qgroup, the only way to use it is that assigning > >> subvolume/snapshot qgroup to it, the point is that we don't want to have a > >> parent qgroup whose level is 0. > >> > >> So we want to force users to use qgroup with clear relations > >> which means a parent qgroup's level > child qgroup's level.For example: > >> > >> 2/0 > >> / \ > >> / \ > >> / \ > >> 1/0 1/1 > >> / \ \ > >> / \ \ > >> / \ \ > >> 0/256 0/257 0/258 > >> > >> This pattern of quota is nature and easy for users to understand, > >> otherwise it will > >> make the quota configuration confusing and difficult to maintain. > > > > I agree that a strict hierarchy of the levels should be enforced. > > Currently the kernel has no idea of 'level', it's just an artificial > > concept that lives in userspace. This patch would be the first place > > to add that magic shift '48' to the kernel. > > In my opinion it would be sufficient to do the enforcement in user > > space, as it is of no technical nature. > > > > ...i have made some patches about these work in btrfs-prog, but it has > been not merged... > I will pick up thoses patches and do the other necessary work..
This one? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2008591/ went through integration branch into progs' master. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
