| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: no quota output if no usage? |
| From: | Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:32:25 +0100 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <54767030.7070706@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <5476297F.8080304@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20141126212144.GD9561@dastard> <54764582.6000005@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20141126221845.GE9561@dastard> <54767030.7070706@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed 26-11-14 18:28:32, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/26/14 4:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> >> Or am I missing something ...
> >
> > Nope, I'm confusing different reporting command behaviour....
>
> Ok, so back to the original question: think it's cool to drop
> the verbose requirement to find out limits when there is 0 usage?
Just as a data point quota(1) command from quota-tools also doesn't
report quota entries where no space & inode is accounted without -v option.
I never thought it's particularly useful but apparently it's some heritage
from the original implementation of quota in some Unix and so I decided to
maintain compatibility...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: no quota output if no usage?, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH-v4 1/7] vfs: split update_time() into update_time() and write_time(), Jan Kara |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: no quota output if no usage?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: no quota output if no usage?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |