Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jan 2003 23:01:24 -0800 | Subject | Re: some curiosities on the filesystems layout in kernel config | From | "Joshua M. Kwan" <> |
| |
Never mind my patch in this case. I had just hit 'y' to send the email when I read this! Obviously, I don't know quite enough about how the kernel works.. I really did think ext3 depended on ext2, since ext3 was simply ext2 + a journal inode.
Oh well. Sorry for the wasted b/w
Regards Josh
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:49:29AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:00:40 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> said: > > > 2) shouldn't ext3 depend on ext2? > > No, because somebody might want ext3 only, and have no intention or > desire to mount a filesystem in ext2 mode. Everything on this laptop > is ext3... > > > 3) currently, since quotas are only supported for ext2, ext3 and > > reiserfs, shouldn't quotas depend on at least one of those > > being selected? > > Because if we did that, we'd be setting ourselves up for a mess when > fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c eventually shows up - like it already has ;) > > Also, from my (possibly incorrect) reading of kernel/sys.c and > fs/quota.c, there won't be a sys_quotactl() in the kernel. As a > result, if you have users who have 'quota -v' in their .login, things > might get interesting. So you might want a config where the quota > system call is there, even if it doesn't do anything incredibly > useful... > > -- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech >
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |