Re: libquota proposal

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 09:40:18AM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> 
> this seems reasonable to me.  why don't you stick it in libutil?
> 
> > As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
> > to commit this in the next few days.
> 
> this is what i'm talking about about using a different name for
> the new syscall that takes totally different arguments.
> 
> is there absolutely no chance for old code to work with the new
> kernel?

It won't work: old code looks at the filesystem type, and fstab
entries for userquota/groupquota options. So, even if we made it
compile again, it would only look for quota on ffs with quota1;
it would miss ffs with quota2, mfs, or anything else that will
have quota in the future.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--