Il 02/07/20 13:34, Brian Foster ha scritto: > I missed how this went from a question around interaction between user > and project quotas to reporting of a problem associated with enablement > of group+project quotas and an old fs. Detected the problem and reported it as an "aside", suggesting a possible improvement. > The above shows a v4 superblock > (crc=0), which means project and group quotas share an inode and thus > are mutually exclusive. It sounds to me that the problem is simply that > you're specifying a set of incompatible mount options on a v4 fs, but > you haven't really stated the problem clearly. I.e.: > # mount /dev/test/scratch /mnt/ -o gquota,pquota > mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/mapper/test-scratch, missing codepage or helper program, or other error. > # dmesg | tail > [ 247.554345] XFS (dm-3): Super block does not support project and group quota together Seems you pinned it anyway. > We have to fail in this scenario (as opposed to randomly picking one) > because either one can work for any mount (presumably wiping out the old > quotas when changing from one mode to the other across a mount). So that's not possible because introducing such a change would create problems in existingsystems. I understand, more or less: if they still boot, they're using just one option and from down my ignorance it seemed a good idea to just discard deterministically one of the options allowing the system to boot anyway. The usual "it's easy if you don't have to do it" :) Tks a lot for the clear explanation. Today I learnt something new. -- Diego Zuccato DIFA - Dip. di Fisica e Astronomia Servizi Informatici Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna V.le Berti-Pichat 6/2 - 40127 Bologna - Italy tel.: +39 051 20 95786
