On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > 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? That was what I had in mind initially, before the additional complication were pointed out, except that we don't need it to look exactly the same - if we use put_user calls instead of copy_to_user that layout doesn't have to be the same. However it seems like going down the stat route and having a kquota_info structure might be the better way to fully separate the in-kernel API from the userspace ABI. > > 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. I don't think we'd need that argument - the fs would always fill out both fields, then the implementation of Q_XGETSTAT would: (1) fail if both group and project quota information is present (2) export the pquota fields as gqouta if only project quota is present > Anyway, please give a shout if I need to revert this. I believe the commit > raced with the commentary. ;) As this is in-kernel only I don't think we need to revert anything, but it would be nice to fix it before 3.12 is released. I didn't exactly race either, your reply to Jan made me look a it a bit more. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
