| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:27:39 -0600 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <56B3E6F3.802@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1454627718-19583-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1454627718-19583-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <56B3E6F3.802@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 |
On 2/4/16 6:04 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Looks ok, but now with the new option: > > 1) needs a manpage update > 2) usage() should be updated to include -f So, I haven't quite worked out what this *is* doing, but on further reflection, it seems like "-f" should definitely relate to behavior which iterates over all filesystems. i.e. without -f, non-xfs filesystems are skipped; with -f, "foreign" filesystems are included. That was my main concern. But if an xfs_quota command is pointed directly at a non-xfs filesystem, I'm not sure what's best. Assume the user intended it, and operate on that fs w/o needing -f? Or require "-f" for consistency? What do you think? And, we can specify multiple mount points to operate on, i.e. xfs_quota -c "foo" /mnt/ext4 /mnt/xfs so ... I guess I don't know if that should require -f or not. principle of least surprise? Keep old behavior of ignoring the non-xfs mount? -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] quota: report should not take arbitrary parameters, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs_quota: allow operation on foreign filesystem types, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |