Re: the bouyer-quota2 branch

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

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?

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
of energy on picking the name.  If we want to follow a common naming
scheme for all syscalls which will take a plist (such as future mount?),
we might want to spend a few minutes on it, though.


(Just to explain the rationale for this nomenclatural crisis, yesterday
I discovered that the changed signature broke some assumptions about
syscall compat I'd made in makesyscalls.sh, and that caused the script
to fail in a very-scratchingly way.  I could just change makesyscalls.sh,
but since I'd had made that assumption, it's possible others have too)

-- 
älä karot toivorikkauttas, kyl rätei ja lumpui piisaa