> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:45:52PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Because we can badly over-reserve metadata when we > > calculate worst-case, it complicates things for quota, since > > we must reserve and then claim later, retry on EDQUOT, etc. > > Quota is also a generally smaller pool than fs free blocks, > > so this over-reservation hurts more, and more often. > > > > I'm of the opinion that it's not the worst thing to allow > > metadata to push a user slightly over quota. This simplifies > > the code and avoids the false quota rejections that result > > from worst-case speculation. > > This patch series looks good to me in general; Jan, it requires > relatively minor changes to the quota system, so it would be good to > get your Acked-by for the first two patches. Since the changes to the > ext4 layer are more in-depth, any objections if I carry all three > patches in the ext4 tree? Yes, I'm fine with you carrying the quota patches. I've already sent my acks. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs -- 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
