From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 22:35:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 22:35:58 -0400 Received: from rj.SGI.COM ([192.82.208.96]:19661 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 22:35:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:35:10 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jan Kara , Alan Cox , OGAWA Hirofumi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Quota patches Message-ID: <20020524123510.A180298@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20020523091626.GA8683@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org hi Linus, On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:03:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 23 May 2002, Jan Kara wrote: > > ... . If he has newer tools > > (<3.05) he has to decide depending on format he wants to use... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This makes me pretty certain we just do not want to have the backwards- > compatibility layer in 2.5.x > > Are there _any_ reasons to use the old stuff, if the fix is just to > upgrade to a newer quota tool? Moving to newer interfaces implies use of the new ondisk format for the quota files (exclusively) - I'd imagine that's the main reason behind providing a choice. Whether or not that reason is sufficently compelling though... dunno. If one wanted to be able to switch between booting either 2.4 (unpatched) and 2.5+, and also maintain quota information on filestystems, then the choice would be useful in that situation. cheers. -- Nathan