Hey Jan, Christoph, On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 20-08-13 23:43:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Sorry for being late to the game, but I don not like the in-kernel > > interface here at all. Given that Q_XGETQSTATV is a strict superset > > of Q_XGETQSTAT there is no need for the second method - just always > > fill out the larger in-kernel structure and only copy the smaller > > information to userspace for the Q_XGETSTAT case. That keeps the amount > > of code required in the implementations of the methods low and follows > > the model used elsewhere in the kernel (e.g. stat and statfs) So you don't like the addition of .get_xstatev in quotactl_ops, and fs_quota_stat would need to match with fs_quota_statv, adding the project quota to the end of the structure? > Well, the trouble is with gquota vs pquota - previously we report in > qs_gquota field either group quotas or project quotas depending on what is > turned on. Generic quota code doesn't know this so xfs get_xstatev() would > have to recognize whether it is being called from the old Q_XGETSTAT > quotactl or from the new Q_XGETSTATV quotactl to know where to fill in > project quotas. And at that point you somewhat loose the elegancy of using > one interface - we could set qs_version to some special value so that > .get_xstatev() recognizes this and does the magic but that doesn't seem very > different from the extra call... IIUC to make this happen without the addition of .get_xstate in quotactl_ops, .get_xstate could also grow an argument to determine whether it was called as Q_XGETSTAT vs Q_XGETSTATV. If called as Q_XGETSTATV it can look at qs_version to determine how much to copy. That might be a bit cleaner than the qs_version magic number, as long as you don't mind changing the .get_xstate interface. > Some duplication could be certainly avoided within XFS itself. Chandra may have taken this route to limit the possibility of breaking the old interface... Anyway, please give a shout if I need to revert this. I believe the commit raced with the commentary. ;) Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
