RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is not a tty and -F is passed
This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/misc/mke2fs.c b/misc/mke2fs.c
index 4b13367..2a23bf7 100644
--- a/misc/mke2fs.c
+++ b/misc/mke2fs.c
@@ -1643,7 +1643,8 @@ got_size:
device_name, retval);
printf(_("This may result in very poor performance, "
"(re)-partitioning suggested.\n"));
- proceed_question();
+ if (!force)
+ proceed_question();
}
#endif
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is not a tty and -F is passed
>
> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
Applied to the maint branch.
- Ted
On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>
>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?
I dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it
will commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended
problem.
We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
for situations where it previously worked just fine.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>>
>>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
>
> Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all? I
> dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it will
> commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended problem.
>
> We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
> somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
> for situations where it previously worked just fine.
Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
I guess.
Ted do you want to just toss in:
- if (!force)
- proceed_question();
? I can send a patch but it may take longer for you to extract it from email ;)
-Eric
On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>>>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>>>
>>>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
>>
>> Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all? I
>> dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it will
>> commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended problem.
>>
>> We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
>> somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
>> for situations where it previously worked just fine.
>
> Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
> I guess.
>
> Ted do you want to just toss in:
>
> - if (!force)
> - proceed_question();
Yeah, I'll just make the change on my end.
-- Ted