On Mar 21, 8:29pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote: -- Subject: Re: libquota proposal
| On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:22:18PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: | > On Mar 21, 5:25pm, bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) wrote: | > -- Subject: Re: libquota proposal | > | > | > We should get rid of quota1 and this direct support. | > | | > | maybe, but after 6.0. | > | > But then are you going to go back and change quota2->quota? | | This is independant. | | > And if yes, why not now? | | we need quota1 up to 6.0 (inclusive) for transition. But we can rename | quota -> quota1 or oquota and quota2 -> quota now. I've already | done so in libquota to avoid an ABI change later; the kernel option can | be done after libquota has been commited (this is independant); the header | merge can be done once quota1 has been removed as there should not be | public consumers any more. Good, I am only worried about the public API/ABI's. christos
