From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: Re: about quota implementation
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:39:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1173721142.6436.52.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
References: <1173715909.3889.23.camel@dhcp-107.ibrix.com>
	<20070312163517.GA8690@infradead.org>
	<1173719485.6436.35.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
	<1173720257.3889.35.camel@dhcp-107.ibrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: blackmagic02881@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1173720257.3889.35.camel@dhcp-107.ibrix.com>
Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 13:24 -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:

> so it worthy duplicating whole rpc logic in quota-tools instead of a
> unified interface via vfs and single quotactl system call?

Yes.

Until the mess that is rquotad is resolved (somebody from the quota
group showing infinite wisdom decreed that Linux should serve up a
"revision" of the rquotad protocol for which there is not even an RFC to
refer to) I will veto any implementation of a client in the kernel.
Private protocols belong in userspace, not kernel space.

Trond


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs