On 2/25/13 9:55 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: > On 2013/02/26 9:07, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 2/25/13 5:39 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >>> On 2013/02/21 0:37, Stefan Behrens wrote: >>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:30:03 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>> The core of this is shamelessly stolen from xfsprogs. >>>>> >>>>> Use blkid to detect an existing filesystem or partition >>>>> table on any of the target devices. If something is found, >>>>> require the '-f' option to overwrite it, hopefully avoiding >>>>> disaster due to mistyped devicenames, etc. >>>>> >>>>> # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1 >>>>> >>>>> WARNING! - Btrfs v0.20-rc1-59-gd00279c-dirty IS EXPERIMENTAL >>>>> WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using >>>>> >>>>> /dev/sda1 appears to contain an existing filesystem (xfs). >>>>> Use the -f option to force overwrite. >>>>> # >>>>> >>>>> This does introduce a requirement on libblkid. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> This means that it is now required to change all occurrences of >>>> "mkfs.btrfs" to "mkfs.btrfs -f" everywhere. Can't we first establish a >>> >>> I also think so. >>> It means -f is not significant to me, I think. >>> (Most of my test scripts fails without -f. So I'll always type "mkfs.btrfs -f") >>> >>> Therefore I want you to revert commit:2a2d8e1962e8b6cda7b0a7584f6d2fb95d442cb6. >>> btrfs-progs: require mkfs -f force option to overwrite filesystem or partition table >>> >>> How do you think about it? >> >> What if you submit a patch to look at an environment variable, >> BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 which causes it to not require -f to overwrite? >> Then you can just set it once at the top of your test environment, >> and not change every instance? > > Yes. But, >>> (Most of my test scripts fails without -f. So I'll always type "mkfs.btrfs -f") > is one example. > > Almost everyone types "mkfs.btrfs -f" (or BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 :) > unconditionally, I think. > So, I think -f option is almost meaningless. > >> Otherwise, I guess I think: >> >> WARNING! - Btrfs v0.20-rc1-212-gf6ef8b5 IS EXPERIMENTAL >> >> and we need to expect that things might change ... > > EXPERIMENTAL... It's certainly so. > However, I think that we should not add the option that it troubles > a lot of people. Well, I sent it as an RFC. Chris merged it; I'll defer to his judgement. Thanks, -Eric > Thanks, > Tsutomu > >> >> -Eric >> >>> Thanks, >>> Tsutomu >>> >>>> time period of 100 years where the -f option is tolerated and ignored, >>>> and then in 2113 we require that the users add the -f option? >>>> >>>> (Just had to do this string replacement everywhere, and had to add -f to >>>> xfstest's _scratch_mkfs in common.rc as well). Sigh. >>>> >>> >> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
