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 +0000, 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 | > > > > quota format, 'quota2' for the new one and 'quota' for the few things | > > > > that are common. | > > > | > > > Everything outside the kernel should be in the last category, though. | > > | > > exept those that deal directly with the filesystem datas (edquota, | > > quotacheck, repquota for quota1, newfs, fsck_ffs, tunefs and fsdb for | > > quota2). | > | > This is (part of) why it's important to distinguish the on-disk | > structures from the FS-independent interface. | > | > (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. We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support. christos
