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 0DBE07CA2 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:27:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA47AC001 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 21:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Qe0PC2iTvfsZ7Ov4 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A665663C5D8D for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:27:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types References: <1454627718-19583-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1454627718-19583-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <56B3E6F3.802@sandeen.net> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <56B432CB.5080709@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:27:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B3E6F3.802@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: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs