Hello, David

2013/2/23 David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz>:
> 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.

Yes, it is.However, more work needs done to make it work well..
I'd continue my work based on integration-20130126..

Thanks,
Wang

> 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

Reply via email to