From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:14:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:14:12 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:38927 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 May 2002 11:14:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEE49C3.4050202@evision-ventures.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:10:11 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kara CC: Nathan Scott , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , OGAWA Hirofumi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Quota patches In-Reply-To: <20020523091626.GA8683@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020524123510.A180298@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20020524145817.GC31925@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Uz.ytkownik Jan Kara napisa?: > Hi all, > > >>On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:03:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Jan Kara wrote: >>> >>>>... . If he has newer tools >>>>(<3.05) he has to decide depending on format he wants to use... >>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> >>>This makes me pretty certain we just do not want to have the backwards- >>>compatibility layer in 2.5.x >>> >>>Are there _any_ reasons to use the old stuff, if the fix is just to >>>upgrade to a newer quota tool? >> >>Moving to newer interfaces implies use of the new ondisk format >>for the quota files (exclusively) - I'd imagine that's the main >>reason behind providing a choice. Whether or not that reason is >>sufficently compelling though... dunno. If one wanted to be able >>to switch between booting either 2.4 (unpatched) and 2.5+, and >>also maintain quota information on filestystems, then the choice >>would be useful in that situation. > > Latest quota interface is able to handle both formats together > (structures passed throught Q_GETQUOTA, Q_SETQUOTA,... are independent > of quota format and Q_QUOTAON takes as an argument in 'id' the quota format > number). So if user wants to stay at old format he can... > So I think Linus is right here that there's no real reason for keeping > compatibility code in 2.5... Linus, I'll send you the patch which kicks > out the compatibility stuff. As a side note: If we can do it for quota - we could possible remove the IPC_OLD variant away as well. It's looong overdue by now, becouse the IPC_OLD was not standard conformant anyway. I would be really really glad to do it iff ACK-ed.