From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] quota: unify ->get_dqblk
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:18:06 -0400
Message-ID: <20100505161806.GA21009@infradead.org>
References: <20100505103937.040319545@bombadil.infradead.org> <20100505104021.693053400@bombadil.infradead.org> <1273067574.7196.388.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:42756 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1760045Ab0EEQSK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 May 2010 12:18:10 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1273067574.7196.388.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:52:54PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Do the fields needs to be individually marked as valid according to what
> is supported by a filesystem or can we always assume that a zero value
> means unknown/unsupported?

The quota-tools code assumes all fields to be valid and doesn't even
check dqb_valid.  It's only used for the set side.