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 <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
