Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] xfs: transaction subsystem quiesce mechanism

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:24:55PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 07:36:37AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Personally, I'd probably have to think about it some more, but initially
> > I don't have any strong objection to removing quotaoff support. More
> > practically, I suspect we'd have to deprecate it for some period of time
> > given that it's a generic interface, has userspace tools, regression
> > tests, etc., and may or may not have real users who might want the
> > opportunity to object (or adjust).
> > 
> > Though perhaps potentially avoiding that mess is what you mean by "...
> > disables accounting vs.  enforcement." I.e., retain the interface and
> > general ability to turn off enforcement, but require a mount cycle in
> > the future to disable accounting..? Hmm... that seems like a potentially
> > nicer/easier path forward and a less disruptive change. I wonder even if
> > we could just (eventually) ignore the accounting disablement flags from
> > userspace and if any users would have reason to care about that change
> > in behavior.
> 
> I'm currently testing a series that just ignores disabling of accounting
> and logs a message and that seems to do ok so far.  I'll check if
> clearing the on-disk flags as well could work out even better.

While I was rejiggering the inode walk parts of quotaoff I did wonder
why it even mattered to dqpurge the affected dquots **now**.  With patch
1 applied, we could just turn off the _ACTIVE flag and let reclaim
erase them slowly.

--D