[PATCH 1/3] quota: Add a new quotactl command Q_XGETQSTATV

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.