Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote:
> > Can you send a testcase that reproduces issues with the old behaviour?
> > 
> 
> Regarding (1) related to inode reservation, current xfs works well
> because inode is reserved one by one if required.
> 
> For example, when an new inode tries to be reserved in xfs_trans_dqresv(),
> it checks quota as follows.

I'm just curious what the intent behdind the patches was.  They look
good to me, but I wonder why we need to change it at all.

> To make it more general, this check should be the same way as the new
> block quota check introduced in the PATCH 2/3 where the disk block can
> be used up to the block quota limits.

So I guess that's the part we'd want a test case for if possible.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/