On 2013/02/26 13:06, Eric Sandeen wrote:
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.
Agreed. So, I sent revert request to Chris :)
Thanks,
Tsutomu
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
