On 7/2/20 7:50 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > Pretty much. ;) I think it's reasonable in theory to say something like > "pick one or the other for older fs," but then we have to get into > issues like being subtly affected by code changes that might reorder > mount options without any notion of that affecting behavior (i.e. very > brittle) and/or choosing one option of the other based on the current > status of the [pg]quota inode, which is more implementation and doesn't > rule out having to fail the mount in all cases anyways. Suffice it to > say I don't think it's worth going further down that path simply to > support passing a combination of mount options that has no runtime > effect and was never a supported combination for the associated version > of the fs in the first place. It might be reasonable to /disable/ both in the case of an invalid specification, with a warning, but then that gets into "do something behind the user's back" - they asked for something impossible, and we gave them ... nothing, with a successful mount return? The tradeoff between that and a failed boot & trip to the data center can be a tough one, but we usually err on the side of "don't silently carry on pretending it's all OK if we've been asked to do something impossible." Unfortunately the only test for "did you ask for an impossible quota scenario in your mount flags?" is to mount it... -Eric
