On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:27:32PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 06:39 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Too many people come complaining about losing their data -- and indeed, > > there's no warning outside a wiki and the mailing list tribal knowledge. > > Message severity chosen for consistency with XFS -- "alert" makes dmesg > > produce nice red background which should get the point across. > > Wouldn't it be much better to disallow: > - creation > AND > - mounting > of btrfs unless some special swtich like: > --yes-i-know-this-is-still-extremely-experimental > is given for the time being? I have no preference here. > Normal users typically don't look at any such kernel log messages - and > expert users (who do) anyway know, that it's still unstable. My previous attempt here was https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9450035/ in btrfs-progs. This time I'm submitting a kernel variant, as it won't be out of sync if you use a modern kernel on a 10 years old RHEL userland. I can revive that -progs patch, and fix code issues (ie, printing the message during parsing); I'd like to hear whether kernel or -progs is better. We can even do both. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Meow! ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Collisions shmolisions, let's see them find a collision or second ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ preimage for double rot13! -- 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
