Re: [PATCH 5/6] mkfs: PQUOTA shouldn't conflict with GQNOENFORCE

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

On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 07:41:22AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 06:03:57PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Codex points out that project quota isn't incompatible with
> > non-enforcing group quota in the kernel, so those shouldn't be
> > incompatible in mkfs either.
> 
> For file systems with XFS_SB_VERSION_QUOTABIT there is no incompatibility
> at all, enforcing or not.
> 
> > 
> > Cc: <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org> # v6.13.0
> > Fixes: 525f826429a868 ("mkfs: add quota flags when setting up filesystem")
> > Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > index 3da11c664255b1..a4864c37a8821b 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > @@ -976,7 +976,7 @@ static struct opt_params mopts = {
> >  		  .defaultval = 1,
> >  		},
> >  		{ .index = M_PQUOTA,
> > -		  .conflicts = { { &mopts, M_GQNOENFORCE },
> > +		  .conflicts = { { &mopts, M_PQNOENFORCE },
> >  				 { NULL, LAST_CONFLICT } },
> 
> But I think this is just fat-fingering anyway, as it wants to
> conflict the pquota vs pquota no enforce options.  So I think
> the commit log could use some rewording for clarify, but the
> change looks good.

Ok, how about:

"Codex points out that project quota isn't incompatible with
non-enforcing group quota in the kernel, so those shouldn't be
incompatible in mkfs either.

"Furthermore, project and group quotas are never incompatible on
QUOTABIT and V5 filesystems, so this is clearly a fat-finger error."

--D