Re: [PATCH 01/11] xfs: always call xfs_qm_adjust_dqlimits during quotacheck repair

[Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 10:38:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 11:25:16PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 10:36:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > LOLLM notices that everywhere else in the kernel, a call to
> > > xfs_qm_adjust_dqlimits precedes every call to xfs_qm_adjust_dqtimers.
> > > In particular, mount-time quotacheck does this.
> > > 
> > > Looking at xfs_qm_adjust_dqlimits, that function is in charge of
> > > conveying default limits to a dquot if that dquot's limits have been
> > > zeroed.  That's quite possible in a repair, so let's follow what
> > > everyone else does and set it.  This requires us to add a new predicate
> > > to decide if xfs_qm_adjust_dqlimits is likely to reset any of the
> > > dquot's limits, and to set the dirty flag to true if so.
> > 
> > I'd vote for merging the two functions as they clearly always should
> > be called together instead.
> 
> Ok, I'll combine them into an xfs_qm_adjust_dqenforcement() function as
> a separate patch...
> 
> > > A different LOLLM noticed that we have no way to force xchk_commit_dquot
> > > to call xfs_qm_adjust_dqtimers, so pack that in at the same time.
> > 
> > This feels completely unrelated, and could also use a much more
> > detailed explanation why we'd want that.
> 
> ...and turn this patch into a justification for code that forces dirty =
> true.  cem said he'd like to take the other 10 patches from part 15, so
> I'll move these two to the start of part 16.
> 

Yeah, I've got the other 10 patches already and discarded the first one.
Fell free to include that in the next series =]

Cheers