From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Make mke2fs.c defaults match mke2fs.conf defaults Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:27:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20070507212700.GF8181@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <463F545A.10903@redhat.com> <20070507194749.GG17180@thunk.org> <463F838D.9030508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Theodore Tso , ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:45228 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966337AbXEGV1F (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 17:27:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <463F838D.9030508@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On May 07, 2007 14:52 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > How likely do you think the case will be that mke2fs.conf would be > > missing? I'm trying to figure out how high priority of an item this > > really is. > > Well, not too likely, although for some reason I guess it happened in > the installer root in FC6 or so. That's what raised the issue. Ah, good point - there are probably lots of installers and rescue disks that grab mke2fs but don't know anything about /etc/mke2fs.conf. > > We could enhance the profile code so that it could read in the profile > > from a memory buffer, and simply compile /etc/mke2fs.conf into mke2fs, > > but that adds bloat --- the question is how necessary do we think that > > really is? > > I guess it doesn't really sound *necessary* - it's just that if we have > 2 different "defaults" and they drift, it can be confusing... Since the shipped mke2fs.conf is only on the order of a few hundred bytes I don't think it is a huge issue to include it. I like the idea of it being compiled into the code and yet consistent with the default install. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.