From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q0RB2sPo163936 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:02:54 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:02:38 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check Message-ID: <20120127110238.GB31093@infradead.org> References: <20120123034513.3339.97432.stgit@ltc219.sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <20120124174612.GC9853@infradead.org> <4F22424E.8070407@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F22424E.8070407@hitachi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: HAYASAKA Mitsuo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, Ben Myers , Alex Elder , Christoph Hellwig On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote: > > Can you send a testcase that reproduces issues with the old behaviour? > > > > Regarding (1) related to inode reservation, current xfs works well > because inode is reserved one by one if required. > > For example, when an new inode tries to be reserved in xfs_trans_dqresv(), > it checks quota as follows. I'm just curious what the intent behdind the patches was. They look good to me, but I wonder why we need to change it at all. > To make it more general, this check should be the same way as the new > block quota check introduced in the PATCH 2/3 where the disk block can > be used up to the block quota limits. So I guess that's the part we'd want a test case for if possible. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs