From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17 v3] quota: Unify VFS and XFS quota interfaces Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:38:26 +1100 Message-ID: <20150121213826.GL16510@dastard> References: <1421412471-4747-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:54254 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752123AbbAUVic (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:38:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421412471-4747-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:47:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > this is another iteration of patches to unify VFS and XFS quota interfaces so > that XFS quotactls work for filesystems with VFS quotas and vice versa. This > is useful so that userspace doesn't have to care that much about which > filesystem it is using at least when using basic quota functionality. In > particular we should be able to reuse project quota tests in xfstests for ext4. > > The patches are based on quota cleanup series [1] and XFS cleanup series [2] > I've sent previously and based on 3.19-rc4 + for-next branch of XFS tree. I > could further split this series into per-quotactl series but frankly I don't > think it will help reviewers in any way (the patches in the current series are > already ordered by quotactl). Hi Jan, Do you have a this series in a git tree somewhere so it's easy to merge and test? > All the comments to the first version of the series are hopefully addressed, > except for Dave's request to reduce number of copying of dquot information - > I have benchmarked that reducing number of copies from 3 to 2 brings just 2% > improvement in speed in my test setup and getting quota information isn't IMHO > so performance critical that it would be worth the complications of the code. I think the numbers address my concern adequately ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com