xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check

To: HAYASAKA Mitsuo <mitsuo.hayasaka.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:02:38 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4F22424E.8070407@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120123034513.3339.97432.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120124174612.GC9853@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F22424E.8070407@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>