* [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
@ 2018-03-25 5:16 Chengguang Xu
2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chengguang Xu @ 2018-03-25 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-xfs; +Cc: darrick.wong, bfoster, sandeen, Chengguang Xu
In current implementation, we size the fs(sub-fs via project quota) at
the soft limit and simply call it 100% used if the limit is exceeded.
It is reasonable when only a soft limit is set, but we should use the
hard limit if both hard/soft limits are set, so that quota-df reflects
the usage information more accurately.
Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
index 2be6d27..43b0fe8 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
@@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
{
uint64_t limit;
- limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit ?
- be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit) :
- be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit);
+ limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit ?
+ be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit) :
+ be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit);
if (limit && statp->f_blocks > limit) {
statp->f_blocks = limit;
statp->f_bfree = statp->f_bavail =
@@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
(statp->f_blocks - dqp->q_res_bcount) : 0;
}
- limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit ?
- be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit) :
- be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit);
+ limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit ?
+ be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit) :
+ be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit);
if (limit && statp->f_files > limit) {
statp->f_files = limit;
statp->f_ffree =
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
2018-03-25 5:16 [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set Chengguang Xu
@ 2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-26 19:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2018-03-26 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengguang Xu
Cc: linux-xfs, bfoster, sandeen, Dave Chinner, Christoph Hellwig
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 01:16:36PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> In current implementation, we size the fs(sub-fs via project quota) at
> the soft limit and simply call it 100% used if the limit is exceeded.
> It is reasonable when only a soft limit is set, but we should use the
> hard limit if both hard/soft limits are set, so that quota-df reflects
> the usage information more accurately.
This is the followup patch to "xfs: adjust size/used/avail information
for quota-df", correct?
I also wonder, statvfs is a weird interface since there's no way to send
back usage information, just blocks/free/avail. Isn't it more
appropriate to use xfs_quota to find out the usage, hard limit, and soft
limit of a directory?
> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> index 2be6d27..43b0fe8 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
> {
> uint64_t limit;
>
> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit ?
> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit) :
> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit);
> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit ?
> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit) :
> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit);
Ok, so now we report hard limit for f_blocks over the soft limit. So if
this is the state of the filesystem:
# xfs_quota -xc 'report -ahp'
Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
Blocks
Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
---------- ---------------------------------
#0 0 0 0 00 [------]
vms 3M 2M 3M 00 [7 days]
Then the df output goes from:
# df /opt/b
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdf 2.0M 2.0M 0 100% /opt
to this:
# df /opt/b
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdf 3.0M 3.0M 0 100% /opt
That makes to me, but as it /does/ change the behavior of an existing
user-visible interface, I would like to know more about the current
behavior. Dave/Christoph, do you recall why df reports the project
quota soft limit?
----
Just for fun let's try the same on ext4...
$ dd if=/dev/zero >> /opt/b/a
^C4129977+0 records in
4129977+0 records out
2114548224 bytes (2.1 GB, 2.0 GiB) copied, 23.9179 s, 88.4 MB/s
$ sudo xfs_quota -fxc 'report -ahp' /opt
Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
Blocks
Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
---------- ---------------------------------
#0 20K 0 0 00 [------]
vms 2.0G 2M 3M 00 [-none-]
<facepalm>
Only 1000x over soft quota...
$ df /opt/b
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdf 13G 2.8G 8.9G 24% /opt
I guess we're going to need a couple more tests, then? One to check
that we enforce project quotas, and another to check what we're
reporting via df?
--D
> if (limit && statp->f_blocks > limit) {
> statp->f_blocks = limit;
> statp->f_bfree = statp->f_bavail =
> @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
> (statp->f_blocks - dqp->q_res_bcount) : 0;
> }
>
> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit ?
> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit) :
> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit);
> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit ?
> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit) :
> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit);
> if (limit && statp->f_files > limit) {
> statp->f_files = limit;
> statp->f_ffree =
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
@ 2018-03-26 19:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-27 0:14 ` cgxu519
2018-04-05 1:40 ` cgxu519
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2018-03-26 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengguang Xu
Cc: linux-xfs, bfoster, sandeen, Dave Chinner, Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:22:59PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 01:16:36PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
> > In current implementation, we size the fs(sub-fs via project quota) at
> > the soft limit and simply call it 100% used if the limit is exceeded.
> > It is reasonable when only a soft limit is set, but we should use the
> > hard limit if both hard/soft limits are set, so that quota-df reflects
> > the usage information more accurately.
>
> This is the followup patch to "xfs: adjust size/used/avail information
> for quota-df", correct?
>
> I also wonder, statvfs is a weird interface since there's no way to send
> back usage information, just blocks/free/avail. Isn't it more
> appropriate to use xfs_quota to find out the usage, hard limit, and soft
> limit of a directory?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> > index 2be6d27..43b0fe8 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
> > @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
> > {
> > uint64_t limit;
> >
> > - limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit ?
> > - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit) :
> > - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit);
> > + limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit ?
> > + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit) :
> > + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit);
>
> Ok, so now we report hard limit for f_blocks over the soft limit. So if
> this is the state of the filesystem:
>
> # xfs_quota -xc 'report -ahp'
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 0 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 3M 2M 3M 00 [7 days]
>
> Then the df output goes from:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 2.0M 2.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> to this:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 3.0M 3.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> That makes to me, but as it /does/ change the behavior of an existing
> user-visible interface, I would like to know more about the current
> behavior. Dave/Christoph, do you recall why df reports the project
> quota soft limit?
>
> ----
>
> Just for fun let's try the same on ext4...
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero >> /opt/b/a
> ^C4129977+0 records in
> 4129977+0 records out
> 2114548224 bytes (2.1 GB, 2.0 GiB) copied, 23.9179 s, 88.4 MB/s
>
> $ sudo xfs_quota -fxc 'report -ahp' /opt
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 20K 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 2.0G 2M 3M 00 [-none-]
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Only 1000x over soft quota...
Heh. One has to format with project quotas /and/ mount with prjquota.
> $ df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 13G 2.8G 8.9G 24% /opt
>
> I guess we're going to need a couple more tests, then? One to check
> that we enforce project quotas, and another to check what we're
> reporting via df?
I think generic/386 tests the df results with project quota...?
> --D
>
> > if (limit && statp->f_blocks > limit) {
> > statp->f_blocks = limit;
> > statp->f_bfree = statp->f_bavail =
> > @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
> > (statp->f_blocks - dqp->q_res_bcount) : 0;
> > }
> >
> > - limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit ?
> > - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit) :
> > - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit);
> > + limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit ?
> > + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit) :
> > + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit);
> > if (limit && statp->f_files > limit) {
> > statp->f_files = limit;
> > statp->f_ffree =
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-26 19:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
@ 2018-03-27 0:14 ` cgxu519
2018-04-05 1:40 ` cgxu519
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cgxu519 @ 2018-03-27 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Darrick J. Wong
Cc: cgxu519, linux-xfs, bfoster, sandeen, Dave Chinner, Christoph Hellwig
在 2018年3月27日，上午3:22，Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> 写道：
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 01:16:36PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>> In current implementation, we size the fs(sub-fs via project quota) at
>> the soft limit and simply call it 100% used if the limit is exceeded.
>> It is reasonable when only a soft limit is set, but we should use the
>> hard limit if both hard/soft limits are set, so that quota-df reflects
>> the usage information more accurately.
>
> This is the followup patch to "xfs: adjust size/used/avail information
> for quota-df", correct?
Yes，right.
>
> I also wonder, statvfs is a weird interface since there's no way to send
> back usage information, just blocks/free/avail. Isn't it more
> appropriate to use xfs_quota to find out the usage, hard limit, and soft
> limit of a directory?
The initial motivation of the patch is for adjusting avail in quota-df when
avail of total filesystem is less than avail of project quota.
I think even if we use xfs_quota, but there is no way to know that information,
so could we add avail field to xfs_quota?
Thanks,
Chengguang.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c | 12 ++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> index 2be6d27..43b0fe8 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
>> {
>> uint64_t limit;
>>
>> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit ?
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit) :
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit);
>> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit ?
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit) :
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit);
>
> Ok, so now we report hard limit for f_blocks over the soft limit. So if
> this is the state of the filesystem:
>
> # xfs_quota -xc 'report -ahp'
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 0 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 3M 2M 3M 00 [7 days]
>
> Then the df output goes from:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 2.0M 2.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> to this:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 3.0M 3.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> That makes to me, but as it /does/ change the behavior of an existing
> user-visible interface, I would like to know more about the current
> behavior. Dave/Christoph, do you recall why df reports the project
> quota soft limit?
>
> ----
>
> Just for fun let's try the same on ext4...
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero >> /opt/b/a
> ^C4129977+0 records in
> 4129977+0 records out
> 2114548224 bytes (2.1 GB, 2.0 GiB) copied, 23.9179 s, 88.4 MB/s
>
> $ sudo xfs_quota -fxc 'report -ahp' /opt
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 20K 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 2.0G 2M 3M 00 [-none-]
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Only 1000x over soft quota...
>
> $ df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 13G 2.8G 8.9G 24% /opt
>
> I guess we're going to need a couple more tests, then? One to check
> that we enforce project quotas, and another to check what we're
> reporting via df?
>
> --D
>
>> if (limit && statp->f_blocks > limit) {
>> statp->f_blocks = limit;
>> statp->f_bfree = statp->f_bavail =
>> @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
>> (statp->f_blocks - dqp->q_res_bcount) : 0;
>> }
>>
>> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit ?
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit) :
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit);
>> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit ?
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit) :
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit);
>> if (limit && statp->f_files > limit) {
>> statp->f_files = limit;
>> statp->f_ffree =
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-26 19:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-27 0:14 ` cgxu519
@ 2018-04-05 1:40 ` cgxu519
2018-04-05 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: cgxu519 @ 2018-04-05 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Darrick J. Wong, Dave Chinner, Christoph Hellwig
Cc: cgxu519, linux-xfs, Brian Foster, Eric Sandeen
Hi Dave, Christoph
Any objection for this?
Thanks,
Chengguang.
> 在 2018年3月27日，上午3:22，Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> 写道：
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 01:16:36PM +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>> In current implementation, we size the fs(sub-fs via project quota) at
>> the soft limit and simply call it 100% used if the limit is exceeded.
>> It is reasonable when only a soft limit is set, but we should use the
>> hard limit if both hard/soft limits are set, so that quota-df reflects
>> the usage information more accurately.
>
> This is the followup patch to "xfs: adjust size/used/avail information
> for quota-df", correct?
>
> I also wonder, statvfs is a weird interface since there's no way to send
> back usage information, just blocks/free/avail. Isn't it more
> appropriate to use xfs_quota to find out the usage, hard limit, and soft
> limit of a directory?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c | 12 ++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> index 2be6d27..43b0fe8 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm_bhv.c
>> @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
>> {
>> uint64_t limit;
>>
>> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit ?
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit) :
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit);
>> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit ?
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_hardlimit) :
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_blk_softlimit);
>
> Ok, so now we report hard limit for f_blocks over the soft limit. So if
> this is the state of the filesystem:
>
> # xfs_quota -xc 'report -ahp'
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 0 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 3M 2M 3M 00 [7 days]
>
> Then the df output goes from:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 2.0M 2.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> to this:
>
> # df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 3.0M 3.0M 0 100% /opt
>
> That makes to me, but as it /does/ change the behavior of an existing
> user-visible interface, I would like to know more about the current
> behavior. Dave/Christoph, do you recall why df reports the project
> quota soft limit?
>
> ----
>
> Just for fun let's try the same on ext4...
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero >> /opt/b/a
> ^C4129977+0 records in
> 4129977+0 records out
> 2114548224 bytes (2.1 GB, 2.0 GiB) copied, 23.9179 s, 88.4 MB/s
>
> $ sudo xfs_quota -fxc 'report -ahp' /opt
> Project quota on /opt (/dev/sdf)
> Blocks
> Project ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
> ---------- ---------------------------------
> #0 20K 0 0 00 [------]
> vms 2.0G 2M 3M 00 [-none-]
>
> <facepalm>
>
> Only 1000x over soft quota...
>
> $ df /opt/b
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdf 13G 2.8G 8.9G 24% /opt
>
> I guess we're going to need a couple more tests, then? One to check
> that we enforce project quotas, and another to check what we're
> reporting via df?
>
> --D
>
>> if (limit && statp->f_blocks > limit) {
>> statp->f_blocks = limit;
>> statp->f_bfree = statp->f_bavail =
>> @@ -45,9 +45,9 @@
>> (statp->f_blocks - dqp->q_res_bcount) : 0;
>> }
>>
>> - limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit ?
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit) :
>> - be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit);
>> + limit = dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit ?
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_hardlimit) :
>> + be64_to_cpu(dqp->q_core.d_ino_softlimit);
>> if (limit && statp->f_files > limit) {
>> statp->f_files = limit;
>> statp->f_ffree =
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set
2018-04-05 1:40 ` cgxu519
@ 2018-04-05 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2018-04-05 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cgxu519
Cc: Darrick J. Wong, Christoph Hellwig, linux-xfs, Brian Foster,
Eric Sandeen
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:40:03AM +0800, cgxu519@gmx.com wrote:
> Hi Dave, Christoph
>
> Any objection for this?
Silence generally means "I don't really care".
Rule of thumb: if it's user visible and likely to be used in
scripts, then we have to be really careful about changing behaviour
as it can break user scripts. This ticks both boxes, so I'd be
wanting more justification than "I noticed this" as a reason for
changing it.
Darrick seems to be covering that concern just fine :)
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-05 21:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-03-25 5:16 [PATCH] xfs: use hardlimit as sub-fs size if both hard/soft limits are set Chengguang Xu
2018-03-26 19:22 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-26 19:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-03-27 0:14 ` cgxu519
2018-04-05 1:40 ` cgxu519
2018-04-05 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.