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 +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.
maybe, but after 6.0.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
