On 08/05/2023 20:18, Qu Wenruo wrote: > [...] >> I see that we seem to have 3 proposals here: >> >> (a) The compat_ro flag from Qu; >> >> (b) Your idea (that requires some clarification for my fully >> understanding - thanks in advance!); >> >> (c) Renaming the mount option "virtual_fsid" to "nouuid" to keep >> filesystem consistency, like XFS (courtesy of Dave Chinner) - please >> correct me here if I misunderstood you Dave =) > > To me, (a) and (c) don't conflict at all. > > We can allow "nouuid" only to work with SINGLE_DEV compat_ro. > > That compat_ro flags is more like a better guarantee that the fs will > never have more disks. > > As even with SINGLE_DEV compat_ro flags, we may still want some checks > to prevent the same fs being RW mounted at different instances, which > can cause other problems, thus dedicated "nouuid" may still be needed. > > Thanks, > Qu Hey Qu, I confess now I'm a bit confused heh The whole idea of (a) was to *not* use a mount option, right?! Per my understanding of your objections in this thread, you're not into a mount option for this same-fsid feature (based on a bad previous experience, as you explained). If we're keeping the "nouuid" mount option, why we'd require the compat_ro flag? Or vice-versa: having the compat_ro flag, why we'd need the mount option? Thanks in advance for clarifications, Guilherme
