[ replying to 4 messages in one, hoping to reduce the number of branches
in this thread ...]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:19:23AM +, David Holland wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:10:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
No, it doesn't. Even before you touched anything, they were only
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:44:53AM +, 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
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:45:45AM +, David Holland wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 03:21:22PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
be supported.
of course it's not nice. But we're talking about existing code calling
(more context restored)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:51:48AM +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,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:50:16AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:44:53AM +, 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:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:45:34PM +, David Holland wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:43:10PM +, David Holland wrote:
(more context restored)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:51:48AM +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
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:21:26PM +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
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 01:10:46PM +, David Holland wrote:
[...
That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
be supported.
of course it's not nice. But we're talking about existing code calling the
legacy quotactl. If we're going to change it to not check the
On Mar 22, 1:10pm, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
|(also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me...)
|
| no, they're not: they can directly the quota1 file
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:19:18PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 22, 1:10pm, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
|(also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me
On Mar 21, 2:21pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:18:28PM +, David Holland wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:19:30PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
| At this point, in the source 'quota1' is used for the old
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:47:38AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 21, 2:21pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:18:28PM +, David Holland wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 06:19:30PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer
On Mar 21, 5:25pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support.
|
| maybe, but after 6.0.
But then are you going to go back and change quota2-quota?
And if yes, why not now?
christos
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:22:18PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 21, 5:25pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support.
|
| maybe, but after 6.0.
But then are you going to go back
On Mar 21, 8:29pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:22:18PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| On Mar 21, 5:25pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
| -- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
|
| | We should get
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:40:18AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
this seems reasonable to me. why don't you stick it in libutil?
As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
to commit this in the next few days.
this is what i'm talking about about using a different
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:14:38AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
is there absolutely no chance for old code to work with the new
kernel? if it's simply making it use the old quotactl() calls,
then please reconsider renaming the new syscall to something
else, as discussed on the prior thread.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:40:18AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
this seems reasonable to me. why don't you stick it in libutil?
As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
to commit this in the next few days.
this is what i'm talking about about using a
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:01:16PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:40:18AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
this seems reasonable to me. why don't you stick it in libutil?
As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
to commit this in
On Mar 19, 12:24pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:14:38AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| is there absolutely no chance for old code to work with the new
| kernel? if it's simply making it use the old quotactl
On Mar 19, 5:45pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| Everywhere? If quota2 is going to be the standard quota and the old one
| is going to be deprecated, then it is better to call it quota and rename
| the old one.
|
| At this point
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:07:50PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Mar 19, 5:45pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| Everywhere? If quota2 is going to be the standard quota and the old one
| is going to be deprecated, then it is better
this seems reasonable to me. why don't you stick it in libutil?
As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
to commit this in the next few days.
this is what i'm talking about about using a different name for
the new syscall that takes totally different arguments.
is
24 matches
Mail list logo
