On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:52:58PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> i'd rather use quotactl2() than the old name.
>
> other ideas:
>
> quotapropctl()
> quotaprop()
>
> and i'd be ok with quotapctl() as well.
I still don't understand what problem we're trying to fix. OK, by using
another name we don't need RENAME(). But why is it harmfull ?
How is it worse than other syscalls or functions which have been versionned ?
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
