Re: libquota proposal

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Mar 21,  2:21pm, bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost (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