On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 01:39:49AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:48 AM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:17:01PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > >> This patchset makes it so that on a per-filesystem basis one can disable > >> quota enforcement for users with cap_sys_resource. This patchset can > >> likely later be extended to per-qgroup, or a per-volume basis. I'm > >> thinking of extending the sysfs interface to list the qgroups and > >> this same interface for the qgroups themselves. > >> > >> Changes since v1: > >> -Rather than a separate member of btrfs_fs_info, use the existing > >> flags field > > > > Looks good to me, thanks. > I'm curious as to whether this approach is fine to get an Acked-by, This was meant as an acked-by, the patch is now queued for 4.13, but as it add some user-visible interface, this may need more time to see if we haven't missed something. > or > if I need to figure out how to make it more leak-tolerant. I don't > think modifying the overridden extents inflight is a problem. I'm not > sure of a way a user would be able to create *new* chunks of data. > Alternatively, I'd be quite happy making this applicable to metadata > only, for file xattrs, creation, deletion, etc.. >From the interface POV, this can be set as a bitmask. I haven't looked if we'd be able to propagate all the changes everywhere in the code, but sounds doable, bug I'm not sure if this level of fine-grained control is desired. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
