[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: some curiosities on the filesystems layout in kernel config
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


On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 01:49:29AM -0500,
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:00:40 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" <> 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]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.524 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site