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? 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 of energy on picking the name. If we want to follow a common naming scheme for all syscalls which will take a plist (such as future mount?), we might want to spend a few minutes on it, though. (Just to explain the rationale for this nomenclatural crisis, yesterday I discovered that the changed signature broke some assumptions about syscall compat I'd made in makesyscalls.sh, and that caused the script to fail in a very-scratchingly way. I could just change makesyscalls.sh, but since I'd had made that assumption, it's possible others have too) -- älä karot toivorikkauttas, kyl rätei ja lumpui piisaa
