On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 07:45:24PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: > This is new generation of attempt to add extended inode identifier. > In previous posts it was called tree_id, subtree_id, project_id. > But after none of this was not good enough. I've refused project_id > because it is well know XFS feature. Admins, users and developers of mangement tools are all going to hate us if we introduce subtly different "project/directory quota like" accounting to different filesystems with different administration mechanisms. The fact that project quotas are already implemented in XFS is not a valid reason for creating a new, slightly less functional, incompatible implementation of the same feature in other filesystems. > And my implementation is > slightly different from it especially from user-space point of view. This is exactly my point - if a user has an ext4 filesystem and an xfs filesystem then your proposal will result in them needing two different mechanisms to manage the project/directory quotas on their filesystems. This result is not desirable from a system design perspective. Management of such a feature needs to be consistent across all filesystem types - just like it is for user and group quotas - and we already have a widely used and well tested management interface that can be used to implement exactly what you need. > In order to avoid ambiguity i've stopped at the "metagroup" term. > I hope it is final name for the feature. I think "metagroup" is too abstract and will likely be confused with group quotas by those that don't understand what it is. i.e it does not convey any information about the bounds of the quota container (unlike user, group, directory or project). Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
