From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862C87CA2 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:41:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A54AC002 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ndVbgoQB3cGta47c for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:41:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:40:36 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types Message-ID: <20160205054036.GK459@dastard> References: <1454627718-19583-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1454627718-19583-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <56B3E6F3.802@sandeen.net> <56B432CB.5080709@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56B432CB.5080709@sandeen.net> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:27:39PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 2/4/16 6:04 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Looks ok, but now with the new option: > > > > 1) needs a manpage update > > 2) usage() should be updated to include -f > > So, I haven't quite worked out what this *is* doing, but on further reflection, > it seems like "-f" should definitely relate to behavior which iterates over > all filesystems. i.e. without -f, non-xfs filesystems are skipped; with -f, > "foreign" filesystems are included. That was my main concern. > > But if an xfs_quota command is pointed directly at a non-xfs filesystem, > I'm not sure what's best. Assume the user intended it, and operate on > that fs w/o needing -f? Or require "-f" for consistency? What do you think? > > And, we can specify multiple mount points to operate on, i.e. > > xfs_quota -c "foo" /mnt/ext4 /mnt/xfs > > so ... I guess I don't know if that should require -f or not. principle of > least surprise? Keep old behavior of ignoring the non-xfs mount? I think we start with requiring "-f", and if people then complain that it's too cumbersome, we remove it and just autodetect. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs