diff mbox

ext4: make quota as first class supported feature

Message ID 20110801164457.GE21388@thunk.org
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Theodore Ts'o Aug. 1, 2011, 4:44 p.m. UTC
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:00:34AM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:40:18AM -0700, Aditya Kali wrote:
> > This patch is an attempt towards supporting quotas as first class
> > feature in ext4. It is based on the proposal at:
> > https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Design_For_1st_Class_Quota_in_Ext4
> > ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
> 
> Thanks, added to the ext4 tree.

Hmm, this caused a bunch of quota test failures that shouldn't be
happening....

Ran: 001 002 005 006 007 011 013 014 053 069 070 074 075 076 077 088 089 100 105 112 113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 135 141 169 184 193 198 204 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 219 221 223 224 225 226 228 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 239 240 243
Failures: 219 230 231 232 233 235

It looks like the backwards compatibility with traditional quota
setups isn't quite working correctly:

230 21s ... - output mismatch (see 230.out.bad)

can fix this quickly.

    	     				- Ted

Comments

Aditya Kali Aug. 5, 2011, 5:32 p.m. UTC | #1
Yes. As I had mentioned in my comment earlier, this would change the
current quota behavior (old quota tools wont work). I will make a
backward compatible patch and resend this. Sorry for the trouble.

Thanks,
--
Aditya


On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. As I had mentioned in my comment earlier, this would change the current quota behavior (old quota tools wont work). I will make a backward compatible patch and resend this.
>
> --
> Aditya
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:00:34AM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:40:18AM -0700, Aditya Kali wrote:
>> > > This patch is an attempt towards supporting quotas as first class
>> > > feature in ext4. It is based on the proposal at:
>> > > https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Design_For_1st_Class_Quota_in_Ext4
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
>> >
>> > Thanks, added to the ext4 tree.
>>
>> Hmm, this caused a bunch of quota test failures that shouldn't be
>> happening....
>>
>> Ran: 001 002 005 006 007 011 013 014 053 069 070 074 075 076 077 088 089 100 105 112 113 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 135 141 169 184 193 198 204 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 219 221 223 224 225 226 228 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 239 240 243
>> Failures: 219 230 231 232 233 235
>>
>> It looks like the backwards compatibility with traditional quota
>> setups isn't quite working correctly:
>>
>> 230 21s ... - output mismatch (see 230.out.bad)
>>
>> --- 230.out 2011-07-21 19:27:10.000000000 -0400
>> +++ 230.out.bad        2011-08-01 10:46:59.470964400 -0400
>> @@ -7,14 +7,10 @@
>>  Write 900k...
>>  Rewrite 1001k...
>>  Write 1000k...
>> -pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>>  Write 4096...
>> -pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>>  Touch 3+4
>>  Touch 5+6
>> -touch: cannot touch `SCRATCH_MNT/file6': Disk quota exceeded
>>  Touch 5
>> -touch: cannot touch `SCRATCH_MNT/file5': Disk quota exceeded
>>        ...
>>
>> I may end up putting this off until the next merge window, unless we
>> can fix this quickly.
>>
>>                                        - Ted
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

--- 230.out 2011-07-21 19:27:10.000000000 -0400
+++ 230.out.bad	       2011-08-01 10:46:59.470964400 -0400
@@ -7,14 +7,10 @@ 
 Write 900k...
 Rewrite 1001k...
 Write 1000k...
-pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Write 4096...
-pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Touch 3+4
 Touch 5+6
-touch: cannot touch `SCRATCH_MNT/file6': Disk quota exceeded
 Touch 5
-touch: cannot touch `SCRATCH_MNT/file5': Disk quota exceeded
	...

I may end up putting this off until the next merge window, unless we