MESSAGE quota resource implemention

[Greg Banks]

Sent from my iPhone

On 08/09/2011, at 0:45, Julien Coloos <julien.coloos at atos.net> wrote:

> Le 06/09/2011 10:23, Greg Banks a écrit :
>>
>> a) my commit "Make quota -f less racy" is going to cause lots of  
>> clashes
>> (sorry!)
>>
>> b) Bron and I both think that your commit "Compute each quota  
>> resource
>> upon setting it for the first time." is unnecessary, given that
>>
>>   i) quota -f doesn't suck now, and
>>
>>   ii) soon, all of the quota-able quantities will be tracked in  
>> fields
>> in the index header.
>>
>> So I think we'll need another round, sorry :(  Given that the
>> annotations quota is broken and I'll be reimplementing it anyway, you
>> may as well ignore QUOTA_ANNOTSTORAGE in all commits, and leave out  
>> the
>> function annotatemore_computequota() for now.  We'll use something  
>> very
>> much like it for reconstruct later.  I'm hoping to be able to pull  
>> your
>> next round of changes into my annotate branch before I reimplement  
>> the
>> annotation quota in the next few days.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I'm still not convinced we'll need quota.sets[], but I'll play along.
>>
>> Thanks again for your work, and sorry that my annotate branch wasn't
>> quite as stable a base as you first thought :)
> So, I saved my current branch to 'quotamessage-0/gnb/annotate' and  
> rebased my patches on current 'annotate' branch (with less racy  
> 'quota -f').
> I removed everything related to recomputing from my patches (as well  
> as quota.sets[]).
>

Excellent, I'll take a look at these when I get into the office.


> What is missing now is the new index field, which value will be used  
> in mailbox_get_usage function. Since my changes do rely on this  
> function, and sometimes computes a delta compared to a previous call  
> of that function, it may not need to be updated afterwards ... I hope.

That seems likely. I have an almost-building diff which adds that field.

> Then maybe some of the cassandane tests I pushed on our repository  
> would need to be refreshed (at least the one that checks what  
> happens for legacy mailboxes on which we add one of the newly  
> handled quota resources).
>

Yep.

Greg.