On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote: > > Can you send a testcase that reproduces issues with the old behaviour? > > > > Regarding (1) related to inode reservation, current xfs works well > because inode is reserved one by one if required. > > For example, when an new inode tries to be reserved in xfs_trans_dqresv(), > it checks quota as follows. I'm just curious what the intent behdind the patches was. They look good to me, but I wonder why we need to change it at all. > To make it more general, this check should be the same way as the new > block quota check introduced in the PATCH 2/3 where the disk block can > be used up to the block quota limits. So I guess that's the part we'd want a test case for if possible. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
