On Fri 26-03-10 01:01:35, Andreas Dilger wrote: > >Yes, quite possibly. How quota is currently is set up is quite > >kludgy, with magic options that do nothing but display magic options > >in /proc/mounts, just in case that's a hard link to /etc/mtab. It > >also looks like that some of the magic is in various distribution's > >init.d scripts, and so while I very much want to clean things up, it > >wasn't clear to me how much flexibility we would have without worrying > >about breaking the init scripts for Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, SLES, > >Fedora, Open SuSE, etc. > > > >There may also be other programs that depend on the existence of > >aquota.user, and may be reading and writing them in various random > >ways, and there is the question of how do we provide compatibility > >with these other programs, some of which may not be within quotatools, > >but in various magic virtualization or container or cluster management > >systems.... > > If the quota file is already present as a regular file, I don't > think it would be terrible to leave it in place, but to create new > quota files as hidden files. > It also would be nice to always enable quota journaing in ext4, > since I don't think this does any harm, and if quotacheck isn't run > then at least there a good chance the quotas are still correct. Yes, this should be a good option. I imagine we would create RO_COMPAT features USRQUOTA and GRPQUOTA meaning that the filesystem maintains quotas in hidden files. And mkfs would directly create these files if it was asked to. > >So maintaining compatibility between older kernels, newer kernels, > >older init scripts, new init scripts, etc. may make changing the quota > >system quite difficult. I would like to do as much cleanup as we can, > >though. > > > >One question I have --- do we really have to support the 2 or 3 > >different quota variants? How many people/distributions are still > >using the original old quota system? One thing that worries me is > >that it looks like the old (non-journaled) quota system may be the > >primary system still being used by Canonical and Debian... I really > >do hope I'm wrong, but there are a bunch of HOWTO's that still people > >to use usrquota and grpquota in /etc/fstab, and not the newer > >usrjquota and grpjquota mount options. > > If there isn't a reason to continue using unjournaled quota (i.e. it > doesn't break to just move to journaled quota everywhere), then > these could just become aliases for the journaled quota > implementation. The other alternative is to deprecate these options > in the next kernel and have it print out a warning on the console to > tell the user to switch over to the journaled version. If we make quota files hidden and teach quota-tools to not depend on usr[j]quota options, then we don't need any quota options at all. And I'd leave usrjquota / grpjquota as they are. Maybe we could issue a warning when usrquota / grpquota is used but quotacheck already prints the warning that you should use journaled quotas if it's run on ext3 / ext4. So we already have this to some extent. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
