Re: Quota patches

Martin Dalecki
2002-05-24T15:14:13Z

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.