> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:45:52PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
quoted text
> > Because we can badly over-reserve metadata when we
> > calculate worst-case, it complicates things for quota, since
> > we must reserve and then claim later, retry on EDQUOT, etc.
> > Quota is also a generally smaller pool than fs free blocks,
> > so this over-reservation hurts more, and more often.
> > 
> > I'm of the opinion that it's not the worst thing to allow
> > metadata to push a user slightly over quota.  This simplifies
> > the code and avoids the false quota rejections that result
> > from worst-case speculation.
> 
> This patch series looks good to me in general; Jan, it requires
> relatively minor changes to the quota system, so it would be good to
> get your Acked-by for the first two patches.  Since the changes to the
> ext4 layer are more in-depth, any objections if I carry all three
> patches in the ext4 tree?
  Yes, I'm fine with you carrying the quota patches. I've already sent
my acks.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html