[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140810214943.GL15431@thunk.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:49:43 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Cc: Li Xi <pkuelelixi@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"Niu, Yawei" <yawei.niu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] quota: add project quota support
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 01:47:24PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't believe that's entirely accurate. The performance
> problem with shared filesystem roots for containers has meant OpenVZ has
> been using a block root for a while. However, we still support the old
> shared filesystem root, but for quota's within the chroot, we use a subtree
> quota system (not a project quota) for which Dmitry Monakhov
> posted the patches several times a couple of years ago.
The XFS-compatible project quota is effectively a subtree quota
system. My argument is that if we're going to try to get something
like this upstream, it should have the same properties as the XFS
project quota system; and that should be semantically compatible with
the patches you are using.
(If we end up using the same ioctl's as xfs_quota uses, which in
theory I'm in favor of, but which I haven't studied yet, then it might
not be ABI compatible with Dmitry's patches, but it should simplify
the patches that OpenVZ would need to carry.)
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists