At 15:14 Uhr +0200 21.10.2011, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>> This is bound to cause tremendous confusion. Can we please change the name
>> to "fs_quota_entry"? Consider what will happen when (or if) there is a
>> "zfs_quota_entry" or an "lfs_quota_entry": it will look to anyone reading
>> the code as if ufs_quota_entry is specific to the ufs layer and the
>> filesystems that use it. Not good.
>
>ufs_quota_entry is part of the API now,
... not in a formal release.
> and at last netatalk started using it.
In a release that is pretty wobbly; afaik the 2.2.1 package doesn't work.
I'd second that the ufs prefix is not what you want here.
hauke
--
"It's never straight up and down" (DEVO)
